Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 516 F.2d 989 - Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.

Fox v. Studebaker-Worthington, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

516 F.2d 989 · 1975

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
12
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 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), 266 N.J. Super. 222 - Hirsch v. General Motors Corp. (1993)

56 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 12 states

55019751980199020002010decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 777 · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas · General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co. · 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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “*** The provisions of Rule 37(d) with regard to interrogatories do not apply when the failure to comply is anything less than a total failure to respond. [Citations omitted.] If a response is made, but some questions not answered or are evasive or incomplete, a motion under Rule 37(a) to compel answers is the proper remedy. [Citations omitted.] *** In other words, Rule 37(d) sanctions are proper only where there has been a complete or nearly total failure of discovery. [Citation omitted.] ***.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(t)here is a strong policy favoring a trial on the merits and against depriving a party of his day in court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(2) Sanctions against a party. If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just and among others the following: (A) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken as established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order; (B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence; (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings unless the order is obeyed, or, dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances makes an award of expenses unjust. (Emphasis added.)”
    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.