A.I. Credit Corporation v. Legion Insurance Co.’s Empirical Analysis
265 F.3d 630 · 2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co. (2015), Urnikis-Negro v. American Family Property Services (2010)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 Webb v. Jarvis · United States v. Taylor · Plymale v. Upright · Essex v. Ryan · 26 F. Supp. 2d 82 - Rainey v. American Forest and Paper Ass'n, 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[F]oundation' is simply a loose term for preliminary questions designed to establish that evidence is admissible.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One sentence of the Rule provides, “The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization.” In the light of that sentence, [one defendant] apparently construes the Rule as absolutely binding a corporate party to its designee’s recollection unless the corporation shows that contrary information was not known to it or was inaccessible. Nothing in the advisory committee notes indicates that the Rule goes so far. [That defendant] cites Rainey v. American Forest & Paper Ass’n, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 82, 94 (D.D.C.1998), in support, but two other district courts have reached different conclusions and we think theirs is the sounder view. See Indus. Hard Chrome, Ltd. v. Hetran, Inc., 92 F.Supp.2d 786, 791 (N.D.Ill.2000) (“testimony given at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is evidence which, like any other deposition testimony, can be contradicted and used for impeachment purposes”); United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356 , 362 n. 6 (M.D.N.C.1996) (testimony of Rule 30(b)(6) designee does not bind corporation in sense of judicial admission).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“testimony given at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is evidence which, like any other deposition testimony, can be contradicted and used for impeachment purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.