David v. Hooker, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
560 F.2d 412 · 1977
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 13 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Bloom v. Bloom, Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman (1985)
52 federal appellate · 13 district · 20 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 National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Rodriguez v. New York · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · United States v. Ryan
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he basic purpose of Rule 401(a) is to protect the bankrupt and to relieve the courts from pointless and needless litigation.... Rule 401 reinforces and supplements Section 11a of the Bankruptcy Act wherein Congress expressed its concern that the sweep of an order of discharge not be impaired and that a bankrupt not be obliged to litigate over debts which are dischargeable. The district court’s order herein is not contrary to that purpose as it does not involve a determination of the ultimate obligation of the bankrupt nor does it represent a ploy by a creditor to harass him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“despite filing of the bankruptcy petition and the broad language of [the automatic stay rule], it was entirely consistent for the trial court to grant a stay of the principal proceedings but to continue to order the [defendant] to comply with a prior discovery order.... Pursuant to that limited continuation of a collateral aspect of litigation, it was also within the trial judge’s power to consider whether the defendant and its agent were in contempt of court....”
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.