Robert P. Smith v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.2d 462 · 1975
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 25 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western Germany (1977), Doe v. Hampton (1977)
23 federal appellate · 25 district · 7 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Morrissey v. Brewer · Goldberg v. Kelly · Perry v. Sindermann · United States v. Nixon
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Discovery cannot be limited to evidence that would be relevant at the trial. The concept at the discovery stage is much broader, as was made specific by a 1946 amendment to Rule 26(b), stating that it is not ground of objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Certainly the requirement of relevancy should be construed liberally and with common sense, rather than in terms of narrow legalisms. Indeed it is not too strong to say that discovery should be considered relevant where there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tavoulareas v. Piro“[T]he test of relevancy for purposes of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) is broader than the test for admissibility at trial, as the Rule specifically provides. Hence, a party may discover information which is not admissible at trial if such information will have some probable effect on the organization and presentation of the moving party’s case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“showing of relevancy * * * is the 'preliminary showing of necessity' which permits at least an In camera review to determine the propriety of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McClelland v. Andrus
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.