Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 848 F. Supp. 482 - Ehrlich v. Howe

848 F. Supp. 482 - Ehrlich v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2018

2 federal appellate · 4 district ·

100199420002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1165 (§ 605 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Hickman v. Taylor · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Meinhard v. Salmon

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

  1. “[i]t is well-settled ... that an action for the conversion of monies is 'insufficient as a matter of law unless it is alleged that the money converted was in specific tangible funds of which claimant was the owner and entitled to immediate possession.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The “potential for conflict [that] exists between Rule 612, which favors disclosure of materials used to refresh a witness’ recollection, and the work-product privilege” is resolved by the courts on a case-by-ease basis by balancing “the competing interest in the need for full disclosure and the need to protect the integrity of the adversary system protected by the work-product rule.” Also, when “Confronted with the conflict between the command of Rule 612 to disclose materials used to refresh recollection and the protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege ... the weight of authority holds that the privilege ... is waived.””
    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.