Ollie Mae Brown and Margaret Brown v. Allen C. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 1214 · 1970
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Quality Foods Centro America Sa Sa v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation Sa, Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. (1996)
73 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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 · Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co. · Colorado v. Franc · Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. · Robert Duane Copas v. Wilbur J. Schmidt
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice,”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Government documents are the outstanding example of matter which is privileged and which is not subject to disclosure. . . . Whether there should be a disclosure is within the discretion of the trial court and, like other discretionary matters, the determination of the court should be made by a balancing of interests. The exercise of discretion, like other matters of discretion vested in trial courts, will be considered upon review for an abuse of discretion. It is the unusual and exceptional case where the determination of the trial court is set aside. Swanner v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 716 ; Adams v. United States, 5th Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 467 , cert. den., 359 U.S. 934, 79 S.Ct. 649, 3 L.Ed.2d 635 (1959). The judges of the Court of Appeals might well feel that under like circumstances they would have exercised the judicial discretion in a manner different from that in which it was exercised by the trial court. But, this is not a basis for reversing the determination of the trial court. The test is whether there has been an abuse of that discretion and in this case we hold that there was no such abuse.”
5 later decisions 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.