Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
602 F.2d 1062 · 1979
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 26 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 265 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group Inc. (1999), Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp. (1982)
67 federal appellate · 26 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Link v. Wabash Railroad · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers
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 265 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should not be construed to authorize dismissal of [a] 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.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[I]f parties are allowed to flout their obligations, choosing to wait to make a response until a trial court has lost patience with them, the effect will be to embroil trial judges in day-to-day supervision of discovery, a result directly contrary to the overall scheme of the federal discovery rules.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure carried the discovery principles of Equity into the nation’s courts of law in the hope of expediting the litigation process and of transforming the sporting trial-by-surprise into a more reasoned search for truth. On their face, the Rules deal harshly with the recusant deponent and the dilatory answeror. Courts have been reluctant, however, to impose the full range of sanctions available under Rule 37. Preclusion of testimony and dismissal are, to be sure, extreme sanctions, to be deployed only in rare situations. But unless Rule 37 is perceived as a credible deterrent rather than a “paper tiger,” the pretrial quagmire threatens to engulf the entire litigative process.”
2 later decisions 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.