Berst v. Chipman’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

cited by 41 later decisions

states following

July 2021

most recently cited

2 district · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Dixon v. Rutgers, the State University of NJ (1988), State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Smith (1987)

2 district · 37 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Herbert v. Lando · United States v. Bryan · In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · Flying Tiger Line, Inc. v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“'the nature of the proceeding, whether the deponent is a party, whether the information sought is available from other sources, and whether the information sought goes to the heart of the claim.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.) · Adams v. St. Francis Regional Medical Center
“'the nature of the proceeding, whether the deponent is a party, whether the information sought is available from other sources, and whether the information sought goes to the heart of the claim.' " Berst , 232 Kan. at 188 , 653 P.2d 107 (quoting Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electric , 71 F.R.D. 388 , 390 [N.D. Cal. 1976] ). Additional factors to conclude are the degree of harm that would be caused by disclosure, the type of controversy before the court, and the public interest in forbidding discovery. Berst , 232 Kan. at 188 -89 , 653 P.2d 107 . "[W]hen a claim of privilege, confidentiality or irrelevance is raised the court has a duty to conduct an in camera inspection to separate and permit discovery of only the relevant documents, thereby protecting against unnecessary and damaging disclosure of irrelevant confidential material.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.) · 58 Kan. App. 2d 501 - Hernandez v. Pistotnik
“' Additional factors to [consider] are the degree of harm that would be caused by disclosure, the type of controversy before the court, and the public interest in forbidding discovery. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Adams v. St. Francis Regional Medical Center · 58 Kan. App. 2d 501 - Hernandez v. Pistotnik

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.