Dodson v. Runyon’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 37 · 1996
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States Drake v. Norden Systems Inc (2004), Pamela Martens v. Roberta O'Brien (2001)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp. · Mitchell v. Texas · Ball v. City of Chicago
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the duration of the plaintiffs failures, (2) whether plaintiff had received notice that further delays would result in di§pjissal, (3) whether defendant is likely to be prejudiced by further delay, (4) whether the district judge has taken care to strike a balance between alleviating court calendar congestion and protecting a party’s right to due process and a chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately assessed the efficacy of lesser sanctions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The remedy [of dismissal for a failure to prosecute] is pungent, rarely used, and conclusive. A district judge should employ it only when he is sure of the impotence of lesser sanctions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sullivan County Jail Medical Department” in both actions. . For the purpose of judicial economy both actions will be addressed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. All parties, including Coss, have treated the actions as consolidated, although they were never formerly consolidated by the Court. . On March 15, 1993, defendant S.C.J. Infirmary served attached to its Answer a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination, with a deposition of Coss scheduled for June 8, 1993, at 10:00 a.m. in the U.S. District Courthouse for the Southern District of New York. On November 4, 1993, defendants LaPorte and Wasser served their discovery demands by mail upon plaintiff, including a Demand for Interrogatories, a Demand for Statements, a Demand for Names and Addresses of Witnesses, a Demand for Experts, and a Demand for Medicals. See Affidavit of Michael Davidoff, Esq. dated June 14, 1994 ("Davidoff Aff.”), Ex. F (Sworn Statement in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment). On November 16, 1993, defendant S.C.J. Infirmary served upon Coss by mail detailed Demands for Interrogatories, as well as a Notice for Discovery and Inspection for Defendant’s Statements Not Reduced to Writing, a Notice for Discovery and Demand for Inspection of Witnesses, a Demand for Statements, a Demand for Medical Certificates, and a Notice of Discovery for Collateral Source Reimbursement. See Affidavit of Joseph Loughlin, Esq. dated June 12, 1996 ("Loughlin Aff.”
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.