Bryant v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.2d 1526 · 1989
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Simmons (1991), Temporomandibular Joint Implants Products Liability Litigation Temporomandibular Joint Implant Recipients v. The Dow Chemical Company
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. · California Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of California
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]or purposes of removal ..., the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finally, Bryant’s failure to comply with Rule 56(f) is relevant. While Program Engineering concluded that a Rule 56(f) affidavit is not always necessary in order ‘to raise in the lower court the issue whether [the opponent] was entitled to additional discovery,’ 634 F.2d at 1193, the absence of a formal request for a continuance is relevant to the question whether the district court abused its discretion by ruling on the motion when it did, see Beneficial Standard, 851 F.2d at 277 (opponent’s ‘informal, oral requests to the court for more time to conduct discovery fell short of compliance with Rule 56’); Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439 , 1443 (9th Cir.1986) (‘Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.’); Foster v. Arcata Associates, Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1467 (9th Cir.1985) (“We reject appellant’s claim because she failed to follow the proper procedures under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for obtaining a continuance or other appropriate discovery order when opposing a motion for summary judgment.’), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 , 106 S.Ct. 1267 , 89 L.Ed.2d 576 (1986). For these reasons we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding Ford’s summary judgment motion when it did.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Aho v. Maragos
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.