Dorey v. Dorey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “broad, although not unbridled, discretion in imposing sanctions”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Company, Tedruth Plastics Corporation, Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis, Contemnor-Appellant. Pesaplastic, C.A., Plaintiff-Counterclaim v. Cincinnati Milacron Company, Defendant-Counterclaim Tedruth Plastics Corporation, Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis, Contemnor-Appellant · 568 So. 2d 687 - Cooper v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

2. “If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or Rule 35, or if a party fails to obey an order entered under Rule 26(f), the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following ... 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 attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances made an award of expenses unjust. Rule 37(d) provides, in relevant part, If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails ... to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, ... the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard 'to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. In lieu of any order or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising him or both to pay t”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 576 F. Supp. 812 - Crawford v. American Federation of Government Employees · Apex Oil Company v. Belcher Company of New York Inc

3. “Rule 37(c) provides a sanction for the enforcement of Rule 36 dealing with requests for admission... . Rule 37(c) is intended to provide posttrial relief in the form of a requirement that the party improperly refusing the admission pay the expenses of the other side in making the necessary proof at trial. * * * * * * Additional provisions in Rule 37(c) protect a party from having to pay expenses if the request for admission was held objectionable under Rule 36(a) or if the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the matter. The latter provision emphasizes that the true test under Rule 37(c) is not whether a party prevailed at trial but whether he acted reasonably in believing that he might prevail.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Herrera v. Scully · 568 So. 2d 687 - Cooper v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.