Carpenter v. Winn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 86 district · 32 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘•The only power of discovery or inspection, conferred by Congress’, is to ‘require the parties to produce boobs or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in casos and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the same by the ordinary rules of proceeding in chancery,’ and to nonsuit or default a party failing to comply with such an order. Rev. Stat. § 724. And the provision of section 914 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 684), by which the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in the courts of each state are to he followed in actions at law in the courts of the United States held within the same state, neither restricts nor enlarges the power of these courts to order the examination of parties out of court.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaiser v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. · Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.

2. ““ * * * a bill of discovery cannot be used merely for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff in such a bill to pry into the case of his adversary to learn its strength or weakness. A discovery sought upon suspicion, surmise, or vague guesses is called a ‘fishing bill,’ and will be dismissed. Story, Eq. Pi. §§ 820 to 325. Such a bill must seek only evidence which is material to the support of the complainant’s own case, and prying into the nature of his adversary’s case will not be tolerated.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Brookville Glass & Tile Co. · Munger v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

3. ““The party against whom such an order is sought has the undoubted right to make evéry objection which he could make, were he a defendant in equi(y to a bill seeking discovery of the same evidence; for the right to compel production is no broader under the statute than under a discovery proceeding in equity. This would include the right to insist that the case, the circumstances, and the purpose to be advanced were not such as to justify the order. He must also be heard, if he desires, upon the pertinency of tlie evidence which is being sought, and the right to insist that he be not required to disclose that which pertains only to his side of the case, but only that .which is material to make out the case of the party seeking the order. When, where, and how are these important questions to be heard and decided? If heard by the court in advance of the trial, it will often be necessary that it shall possess itself of that kind of knowledge of the case which can be had only on the trial where the evidence is to- be produced. This in many cases will practically require two trials — one before the jury is impaneled; another after. Opportunities for a miscarriage of justice, as well as inconvenience to the trial judge, may be reduced to a minimum by making an order to produce at the trial, or there show cause why he should not.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaiser v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.