Bell v. Fowler’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 262 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2001), Andrews v. Fowler (1996)
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Wilson v. Garcia · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the party requesting the estoppel must show that the defendants have engaged in 'affirmative conduct ... that was designed to mislead or was unmistakably likely to mislead' a plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“presupposes that the plaintiff knows of the facts underlying the cause of action but delayed filing suit because of the defendant's conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Under Rule 30(a)(2)(A), a party is entitled to up to ten depositions without leave of court, and to obtain discovery depositions beyond ten, leave of court is required. The record reveals that Bell was permitted to take twelve depositions, two more than permitted without leave of court under Rule 30. Although some depositions were taken jointly for both this and a related case, Bell consented and participated in them. Additionally, Bell presented no good reason why the additional depositions were necessary. Bell had already deposed eight North Sioux City council members, the mayor, and a former police chief at the time that she made the request. There is no indication that deposing two additional council members, one of whom was not a council member until after Fowler’s discharge, would have revealed anything other than what Bell had already obtained. In short, the additional depositions simply would have been cumulative and would have served no proper purpose. The district court committed no abuse of discretion in denying Bell’s request.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.