Henry v. Sneiders’s Empirical Analysis
490 F.2d 315 · 1974
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp. (1979), Adriana International Corp. v. Thoeren (1990)
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 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 Gill v. Stolow · Jones v. Uris Sales Corp. · Brown v. Van Braam · Gill v. Stolow
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here oral proceedings unequivocally give a litigant notice that certain documents are to be produced, the absence of a written order does not preclude the entry of a default judgment for failure to comply.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Was appellant entitled to a jury trial on the issue of damages? After entering default judgment on the issue of liability, the district court held a hearing to determine the amount of damages. Although appellant had asked for a jury on that issue, the court denied the request and proceeded without a jury. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) authorizes a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing following a default judgment to determine damages. The Rule preserves the right of trial by jury ‘when and as required by any statute of the United States.’ Appellant cites no ‘statute of the United States’ requiring a jury trial under these circumstances. Nor is this court aware of any such statute. Therefore, the Rule does not itself require a jury trial on the issue of damages. Nor does the appellant have a constitutional right to a jury trial under these circumstances, since the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury does not survive a default judgment. Brown v. Ban [Van ] Braam, 3 U.S. 344 , 3 Dall. 344 , 1 L.Ed. 629 (1797); Midland Contracting Co. v. Toledo Foundry and Machine Co., 154 F. 797 (7th Cir.1907); Johnson v. Bridgeport Deoxidized Bronze and Metal Co., 125 F. 631 (C.C.D.Conn.1903); Raymond v. Danbury & N.R. Co., 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,-593, p. 332 (C.C.D.Conn.1877); Gill v. Stolow, 18 F.R.D. 508 (S.D.N.Y.1955), rev’d on other grounds, 240 F.2d 669 (2d Cir.1957); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice P 55.07.”
2 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.