Jo Ann Lyons v. Wilbur R. Johnson, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delarios, Jo Ann Lyons v. F. J. Delarios’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.2d 540 · 1969
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 16 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena (1989), 20 Cal. 3d 844 - Britt v. Superior Court (1978)
28 federal appellate · 16 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The scales of justice would hardly remain equal ... if a party can assert a claim against another and then be able to block all discovery attempts against him by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to any interrogation whatsoever upon his claim.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“One of the suits was against a California deputy district attorney, some police officers and other persons. The other suit was against a magistrate of a municipal court and an attorney appointed to represent or assist appellant in some misdemeanor charges on which proceedings had been suspended for a time under § 1368 of the California Penal Code (‘a doubt * * * as to the sanity of the defendant’). From the implications of the complaints, appellant was after hospital examination apparently deemed not to lack capacity to stand trial. Both complaints sought damages for conspiracy and acts, alleged to have been engaged in against appellant, which were recognized by her as having been separate but apparently regarded as having had similar aims-getting her put (she believed) into a state mental institution. Dismissal of the suits was made because of appellant’s continued and unyielding refusal to submit herself to any depositional interrogation or discovery whatsoever in relation to her claims. She ignored a number of notices which had been served upon her for that purpose. When the court thereupon entered an order directing her to appear upon another such notice, she presented herself at the deposition scene, but refused to answer any question except to state her name. To all other inquiries made of her, she merely responded that she was invoking her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The interrogation had sought to elicit information from her as to h”
2 later decisions 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.