Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 FSUPP3D 17 - District Title v. Warren

District Title v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Upjohn Company v. United States · Kastigar v. United States · Hoffman v. United States · Rogers v. United States · United States v. Zolin

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

  1. “may have information concerning assets held or transferred by Timothy Day,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “) at 3. Plaintiff proffered that Day transferred over $80,000 in profits received from a November 2014 sale of property in St. Mary's County, Maryland to an account in New Zealand. Id. At a trial related to the St. Mary's County transaction, a witness testified that it was Day's attorney, Matthew LeFande, who instructed the settlement company to transfer the funds to the New Zealand account. Id. LeFande opposed the motion and sought a protective order. Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. & Request for Protective Order [Dkt. # 108] (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “). The Magistrate Judge concluded that LeFande's assertions of privilege were premature because LeFande would be required to assert the attorney-client and Fifth Amendment privileges on a question-by-question basis. Id. at -5. On June 16, 2017, LeFande submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge's order to this Court, and he renewed his request for a protective order. Obj. to Magistrate Judge's Op. & Request for Protective Order [Dkt. # 111] (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.