International Systems and Controls Corporation Securities Litigation Koenig v. International Systems and Controls Corporation Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
693 F.2d 1235 · 1982
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 16 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Haines v. Liggett Group Inc. (1992), Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie (1994)
39 federal appellate · 16 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 15 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 · Upjohn Company v. United States · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Griffin v. United States · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie
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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[evidence] such as will prevail until contradicted and overcome by other evidence ... [a] case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support finding if evidence to contrary is disregarded.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The courts have evolved a two element test for a prima facie showing; First there must be a prima, facie showing of a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the work product privilege. Second, the court must find some valid relationship between the work product under subpoena and the prima facie violation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some cases have found substantial need by emphasizing the importance of the documents themselves. One common justification for discovery is the claim which relates to the opposite party's knowledge that can only be shown by the documents themselves. Bird v. Penn Central Co., 61 F.R.D. 43 (E.D.Pa. 1973); Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Giddings & Lewis, Inc., 296 F.Supp. 979, 983 (E.D.Wis.1969) .... We note that ultimately, these findings are part of a balancing test. The district court should weight all the factors in deciding this issue. This balance will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”
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.