Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation State of Alaska v. Boise Cascade Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
685 F.2d 810 · 1982
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 332 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach (1998), Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation v. Usa
40 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 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 National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Hoffman v. Blaski · Galloway v. United States
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 332 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e will not upset a district court's conduct of discovery procedures absent a demonstration that the court's action made it impossible to obtain crucial evidence, and implicit in such a showing is proof that more diligent discovery was impossible.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Committee is advised that parties upon whom interrogatories are served have occasionally responded by directing the interrogating party, to a mass of business records or by offering to make all of their records available, justifying the response by the option provided by this subdivision. Such practices are an abuse of the option. A party who is permitted by the terms of this subdivision to offer records for inspection in lieu of answering an interrogatory should offer them in a manner that permits the same direct and economical access that is available to the party. If the information sought exists in the form of compilations, abstracts or summaries then available to the responding party, those should be made available to the interrogating party. The final sentence is added to make it clear that a responding party has the duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which answers to interrogatories can be derived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served ... and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived ... A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.”
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.