Calandro v. Parkerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 state decisions

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

1. “Rule 37. Failure to make discovery; sanctions. (a) Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. A party, upon reasonable notice to all parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows: * * * * (2) Motion. If ... a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, . . . the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer[.] * * * * (b) Failure to Comply with Order. * * * * (2) Sanctions By Court In Which Action Is Pending. If a person . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or Rule 35, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following: ;jc % # (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; • >fc # ^ # (d) Failure of Party to Attend at Own Deposition or Serve Answers to Interrogatories or Respond to Request for Inspection. If a party . . . fails ... (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, . . . the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B) a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Front Page, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Pryor

2. “Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for Appellants’ flagrant failure to comply with the court’s directive to provide full and complete discovery to Appellee. The trial court was in a superior position to judge the actions or motives of the litigants, and we will not second-guess its ruling. The fact that the sanction imposed by the trial court was undoubtedly final and severe is of no consequence, as Rule 37 specifically provides for dismissal of the action where a party fails to comply with an order to provide discovery. Appellants were the plaintiffs in this case and, as such, they chose to utilize the court system to attempt to redress alleged wrongs. To allow them to bog down the judicial system through their delay and willful noncompliance with the trial court’s order would be imprudent.We thus affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Appellants’ deceit claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Ark. App. 241 - Coulson Oil Co., Inc. v. Tully

3. “Obviously, some of the available sanctions for failure to comply with a discovery order may be devastating to a claim or defense. Dismissal and judgment by default fall into that category, as do orders refusing to permit a position to be advanced or supported and prohibiting the introduction of designated evidence. The Supreme Court has described sanctions of this type as “extraordinary” and said that they should be used “sparingly and only when other measures fail because of the inherent danger ofprejudice.” However, the Court has “repeatedly upheld” the discretion of trial judges “in fashioning severe sanctions for flagrant discovery violations.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Ark. App. 241 - Coulson Oil Co., Inc. v. Tully