Norman v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.2d 470 · 1970
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 11 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western Germany (1977), Ocelot Oil Corporation v. Sparrow Industries (1988)
17 federal appellate · 11 district · 15 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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Hovey v. Elliott · Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a direct flaunting of the Court's authority.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellants argue that on the basis of Societe Internationale Pour Participationes Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 , 78 S.Ct. 1087 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958), the entry of default judgment was, as a matter of law, erroneous. On the facts the cases are distinguishable. In Rogers, although there was a failure to produce documents, there was an obvious good faith attempt to comply with the court order; with the Normans no such finding is permissible. Notwithstanding the presence of bona fides, the Rogers court held relief under Rule 37 to be proper and further stated that ‘refuses to obey’ simply means ‘failing to comply with an order.’ Thus, Rule 37 relief was clearly permissible in the Norman case. However, as Rogers held. Rule 37 (b) (2) (iii) remedies are to be used only where there appears ‘willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of petitioner.’ In this regard. Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322 , 29 S.Ct. 370 [ 53 L.Ed. 530 ] (1909) and Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 , 17 S.Ct. 841 , 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897) must be considered. Briefly, the latter case held that an answer could not be stricken out and all right to defend could not be denied as a mere punishment for failing to comply with a court order. Hammond pared the Hovey decision by holding that a court could properly strike an answer and enter default judgment under circumstances where a party fails to produce documents as ordered. The court stated that trial courts have inherent power to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In [Societe Internationale Pour Participationes Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 , 78 S.Ct. 1087 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958)], although there was a failure to produce documents, there was an obvious good faith attempt to comply with the court order; . . . Notwithstanding the presence of bona fides, the Rogers court held relief under Rule 37 to be proper and further stated that ‘refuses to obey’ simply means ‘failing to comply with an 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.