Doe v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably 148 Ill. App. 3d 581 - Petrillo v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. (1986), 379 Pa. Super. 150 - Moses v. McWilliams (1988)
1 federal appellate · 9 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 25 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 Hickman v. Taylor · Gregory v. United States · International Business Machines Corp. v. Edelstein · Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. LaVay · Wenninger v. Muesing
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhere are entirely respectable reasons for conducting discovery by interview vice deposition: it is less costly and less likely to entail logistical or scheduling problems; it is conducive to spontaneity and candor in a way depositions can never be; and it is a cost-efficient means of eliminating non-essential witnesses from the list completely.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o party to litigation has anything resembling a proprietary right to any witness's evidence. Absent a privilege no party is entitled to restrict an opponent's access to a witness....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general proposition ... no party to litigation has anything resembling a proprietary right to any witness’s evidence. Absent a privilege no party is entitled to restrict any opponent’s access to a witness, however partial or important to him, by insisting on some notion of allegiance .... Unless impeded by privilege an adversary may inquire, in advance of trial, by any lawful manner to learn what any witness knows.... [W]hile the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have provided certain specific formal methods of acquiring evidence from recalcitrant sources by compulsion, they have never been thought to preclude the use of such venerable, if informal, discovery techniques as the ex parte interview of a witness who is willing to speak.”
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.