Bowles v. Batson’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2001
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 Yakus v. United States · Zimberg v. United States · Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corp. v. Warfield Natural Gas Co. · 26 F. Supp. 566 - Walsh v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. · Heinz v. Bowles
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Eac-h of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, not less than 10 days after service thereof or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow on. motion and notice, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission either (1) a sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters * * * .A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party deny only a part or a qualification of a matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much of it as is true and deny only the remainder.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Failure to serve a sworn statement either denying matters of which admissions are requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why a party cannot either admit or deny such matters, resulting in admission of facts alleged in the complaint, in compliance with Rule 36(a) has been held to authorize a summary judgment. Walsh v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 566 . ****** “The defendant did not comply with the provisions of the Rule 36, and therefore, the facts set forth in plaintiff’s request for admissions for the purpose of this case are deemed admitted.””
1 later decision 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.