Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 481 Mass. 29 - Patel v. Martin

Patel v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Upjohn Company v. United States · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. Koller · Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the consequences of an adverse discovery order can be ascertained, the prejudice identified, and the error remedied by barring the use of any evidence derived from the protected communications at a new trial or other subsequent proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “orders requiring the disclosure of privileged material, such as the order in this case, are not categorically irremediable, and therefore are not appealable under the doctrine of present execution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Where a postjudgment appeal offers a viable, albeit imperfect, remedy, we will not grant a right to interlocutory appeal from a discovery order simply because it involves an issue of privilege.”
    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.