Redwood v. Dobson’s Empirical Analysis
476 F.3d 462 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Imbler v. Pachtman · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Albright v. Oliver · Hughes v. Rowe · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“authority to maintain standards of civility and professionalism. It is precisely when animosity runs high that playing by the rules is vital. Rules of legal procedure are designed to defuse, or at least channel into set forms, the heated feelings that accompany much litigation. Because depositions take place in law offices rather than courtrooms, adherence to professional standards is vital, for the judge has no direct means of control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Q. Okay. Was your wife [Magalia] involved in an accident in the past year? MR. HORWITZ: Hold on, what’s the purpose of asking that question? What’s the—how is it connected to anything pursuant to Rule 26? We’re not claiming anything like that. MS. LEWIS: Okay. MR. HORWITZ: So you’re asking about a medical condition that has nothing to do with this case so why are you asking? MS. LEWIS: It does have something to do with it because you said she couldn’t come in here for a long time because of it. MR. HORWITZ: But that doesn’t have to do with discovery, doesn’t have to do with this case. MS. LEWIS: Are you instructing him not to answer? MR. HORWITZ: Right now I’m having a 37.2 with you. MS. LEWIS: I want to know the answer to that question. MR. HORWITZ: Absent any communication attributable to why it has - anything to do with this case, I’m going to instruct him to not answer the question because of privacy grounds, privacy privilege. MS. LEWIS: Well then I’m guessing the answer is no. MR. HORWITZ: You can guess whatever you like. I’m instructing him not to answer the question. Q. Does your— MR. HORWITZ: Also I don’t he—excuse me, I don’t lie to a judge. A. I’m sorry, what is the question? Q. Does your wife have a shoulder injury? A. Again, L don’t want to answer that. It has nothing to do with this case. MR. HORWITZ: .Moving on. A. It’s a personal ease. [[Image here]] Q. What does that mean, it’s a personal case. A. It’s private. Q. What’s private? MR. HORWITZ: Stop. Ask anothe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a means to contest the accuracy of the other side’s statement of facts: that means is a brief (or reply brief, if the contested statement appears in the appellee’s brief), not a motion to strike. Motions to strike sentences or sections out of briefs waste everyone’s time.... Motions to strike words, sentences, or sections out of briefs serve no purpose except to aggravate the opponent — and though that may have been the goal here, this goal is not one the judicial system will help any litigant achieve. Motions to strike disserve the interest of judicial economy. The aggravation comes at an unacceptable cost in judicial time.”
1 later decision 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.