Vaughan v. Broadfoot’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Quick v. Quick (1982), Willis v. Duke Power Co. (1976)
32 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 Star Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co. · Thormer v. LEXINGTON MAIL ORDER COMPANY · Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court · Gales v. Smith
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“i. The Purpose of the Subpoenas Duces Tecum The subpoena duces tecum... is the process by which a court requires the production at the trial of documents, papers, or chattels material to the issue.... [[Image here]] Anything in the nature of a mere fishing expedition is not to be encouraged. A party is not entitled to have brought in a mass of books and papers in order that he may search them through to gather evidence. 12 The law recognizes the right of a witness subpoenaed duces tecum to refuse to produce documents which are not material to the issue or which are of a privileged character. Nevertheless, whether a witness has a reasonable excuse for failing to respond to a subpoena duces tecum is to be judged by the court and not by the witness. Though he may have [a] valid excuse for not showing... the document in evidence, yet he is bound to produce it, which is a matter for the judgment of the court and not the witness. .... [On a motion to quash] a subpoena duces tecum ..., the court... examine [s] the issues raised by the pleadings and, in the light of that examination,. . . determine [s] the apparent relevancy of the documents or the right of the witness to withhold production upon other grounds. An adverse ruling upon [the] movant’s motion to quash... gives counsel [for the respondent] no right to inspect the books, documents, or chattels ordered to be produced at the trial, nor does it determine the admissibility of [those] items at the trial. The subpoena merely req”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nicholson v. Thom“"A peculiarity of the subpoena duces tecum is that, in the nature of things, it must specify, with as much precision as is fair and feasible, the particular documents desired. This is because the witness ought not to be required to bring what is not needed, and he cannot know what is needed unless he is informed beforehand.” (Emphasis in original.)”
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.