Flaks v. Koegel’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.2d 702 · 1974
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 23 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic (2004), Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp. (1979)
71 federal appellate · 23 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Brady v. United States · Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Hovey v. Elliott
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 1970 amendments were intended to authorize the court, where it deemed appropriate, to impose more flexible and softer sanctions for Rule 37 violations than theretofore provided. However, there was no intent to eliminate the willfulness element when the harsh sanction of the dismissal of a complaint or the striking of an answer was ordered. This is made clear in the note of the Advisory Committee on the Rules.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * [W]e think that Rule 37 should not be construed to authorize dismissal of this complaint because of petitioner’s noncompliance with a pretrial production order when it has been established that failure to comply has been due to inability, and not to willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of petitioner.””
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.