37 F. Supp. 2d 6 - Cobell v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. (2001), Cobell v. Norton (2004)
2 federal appellate · 19 district ·
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 Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · State v. Simpson · Spallone v. United States · Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies · Food Lion, Incorporated v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio-Clc, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court is deeply disappointed that any litigant would fail to obey orders for production of documents, and then conceal and cover-up that disobedience with outright false statements that the court then relied upon. But when that litigant is the federal government, the misconduct is even more troubling. The institutions of our federal government cannot continue to exist if they cannot be trusted. The court here conducted monthly status conferences where plaintiffs complained that the government was not producing the required documents. Because of the court’s great respect for the Justice Department, the court repeatedly accepted the government’s false statements as true, and brushed aside the plaintiffs’ complaints. This two-week contempt trial has certainly proved that the court’s trust in the Justice Department was misplaced. The federal government here did not just stub its toe. It abused the rights of the plaintiffs to obtain these trust documents, and it engaged in a shocking pattern of deception of the court. I have never seen more egregious misconduct by the federal government.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contrary to the impression some would seek to create, I do not relish holding these cabinet officials in contempt. And I do so today more out of sadness than anger. But courts have a duty to hold government officials responsible for their conduct when they infringe on the legitimate rights of others. These officials are responsible for seeing that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. In this case, the laws— the orders of this court — were either ignored or thwarted at every turn by these officials and their subordinates. The court must hold such government officials accountable; otherwise, our citizens — as litigants — are reduced to mere supplicants of the government, taking whatever is dished out to them. That is not our system of government, as established by the Constitution. We have a government of law, and government officials must be held accountable under the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Special Master shall oversee the discovery process and administer document production, compliance with court orders, and related matters. Further duties of the special master shall be set out in a forthcoming order.”
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.