In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 139 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 22 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg (1994), United States v. Prudential Insurance Company (1991)
31 federal appellate · 22 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Relies on California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart · In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation MDL No. 381 · Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona · Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection and therefore would be open to the public.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Protective Orders. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because copies required for filing are an added expense and the large volume of discovery filings presents serious problems of storage in some districts, the Committee in 1978 first proposed that discovery materials not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceedings. But such materials are sometimes of interest to those who may have no access to them except by a requirement of filing, such as members of a class, litigants similarly situated, or the public generally. Accordingly, this amendment and a change in Rule 30(f)(1) continue the requirement of filing but make it subject to an order of the court that discovery materials not be filed unless filing is requested by the court or is effected by parties who wish to use the materials in the proceeding.”
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.