Davis v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2003
18 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 United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Wicks v. City of Charlottesville · Laverne v. Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow · 290 F. Supp. 141 - Kisting v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If any party, required by another to testify on his behalf, refuses to testify, the court, officer, or person before whom the proceeding is pending, may, in addition to punishing said party as for contempt, dismiss the action, or other proceeding of the party so refusing, as to the whole or any part thereof, or may strike out and disregard the plea, answer, or other defense of such party, or any part thereof, as justice may require.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his rule recognizes that historically the privilege against self-incrimination was intended solely as a shield. The rule thus provides that a moving party cannot use it as a sword to sabotage any attempt by the other party, either during pretrial discovery or at trial, to obtain information relevant to the cause of action alleged, and relevant to possible defenses to the claim. Laverne v. Incorp. Village of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635 , 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 782 , 219 N.E.2d 294, 295 (1966), appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 682 , 87 S.Ct. 1324 , 18 L.Ed.2d 403 (1967). In other words, the moving party “in a civil action who exercises his privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the issues involved will have his complaint dismissed upon timely motion.” Kisting v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 290 F.Supp. 141, 149 (W.D.Wisc.1968), aff'd, 416 F.2d 967 (7th Cir.1969). See annot., 4 A.L.R.3d 545 . The idea is that it would be unjust to permit parties to use the courts to seek affirmative relief while at the same time deflecting relevant questions, the answers to which may constitute a defense to the claims asserted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“historically the privilege against self-incrimination was intended solely as a shield. The rule thus provides that a moving party cannot use it as a sword to sabotage any attempt by the other party, either duringpretrial discovery or at trial, to obtain information relevant to the cause of action alleged, and relevant to possible defenses to the claim. In other words, the moving party “in a civil action who exercises his privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the issues involved will have his complaint dismissed upon timely motion.” The idea is that it would be unjust to permit parties to use the courts to seek affirmative relief while at the same time deflecting relevant questions, the answers to which may constitute a defense to the claims asserted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hicks v. Been
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.