How cited: St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Vanskike · Go Syfert

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Vanskike (1982)

green · 154 citation events across 46 courts. Showing the 17 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198220042026
green In Re Sealed Case (1982)
Rule Authority · D.C. Cir.
In one very recent case, In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.ct. 1632, 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982), the court apparently assumed that the government would have to show both crime or fraud and extraordinary necessity in order to withstand a motion to quash a grand jury’s subpoena for an attorney’s opinion work product.
Cited (see also) · 8th Cir. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See also Vanskike v. ACF Indus., Inc., 665 F.2d 188 , 209 (8th Cir.1981) ("[a]rgument of counsel is a procedural question to be determined by federal law."), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982). 17 Johnson v. Richardson, 701 F.2d 753 (8th Cir.1983), without engaging in detailed analysis of the question or citing the earlier three cases we have referred to above, applied Missouri law to the question of what may be permissibly argued in closing…
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Vanskike v. AGF Industries, Inc., 665 F.2d 188 , 206 (8th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
Cited (see also) · 10th Cir. · signal: see also
See also Vanskike v. ACF Indus., Inc., 665 F.2d 188 , 200 (8th Cir.1981) (applying Eichel rule that in FELA actions, “collateral source payments are inadmissible as bearing on the extent or duration of disability,” and upholding district court's ruling that evidence of social security and pension disability payments were inadmissible as was fact that plaintiff would not accept employment that paid less than those benefits), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L…
green Nos. 91-1873, 91-1874 (1993)
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See Doe v. United States (In re Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1078 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982). 91 Determining whether work product immunity is available requires a three step analysis.
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See Doe v. United States (In re Doe), 662 F.2d 1073, 1078 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
Cited · 4th Cir. · signal: see
See In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1081 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Vanskike v. ACF Industries, 665 F.2d 188 , 194-95 (8th Cir.1981) (applying Missouri law), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Manufacturing Co., 666 S.W.2d 828, 834 (Mo.App.1984).
green Laney v. Coleman Co. (1985)
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Vanskike v. ACF Industries, 665 F.2d 188 , 194-95 (8th Cir.1981) (applying Missouri law), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Manufacturing Co., 666 S.W.2d 828, 834 (Mo.Ct.App.1984).
Cited (see also) · 8th Cir. · signal: see also
See Aronson’s Men’s Stores, Inc. v. Potter Electric Signal Co., Inc., 632 S.W.2d 472 , 473 n. 2 (Mo.1982) (en banc); see also Vanskike v. ACF Industries, Inc., 665 F.2d 188, 203 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
green United States v. Regan (2002)
Cited · E.D. Va. · signal: see
See In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1079 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
Cited · Nev. · signal: see
See In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073 , 1080 (4th Cir.1981) (prima facie showing of illegal activity upon the part of the attorney was sufficient to overcome the work product protection), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 506 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (substantial need for documents shown where they shed direct light on motive and knowledge of defendant and counsel, and actions of counsel were an issue in the case); Donovan…
Cited · D.S.C. · signal: see
See In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982).
green Mason v. Texaco, Inc. (1990)
Cited · D. Kan. · signal: see
See Vanskike v. ACF Indus., Inc., 665 F.2d 188 , 201-02 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 552 F.Supp. 99, 101 (N.D.Ill.1982).
Cited (see also) · S.D.W. Va · signal: see also
See also, In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1079-80 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982). .
Cited · C.D. Cal. · signal: see
See In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1079 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 801 (3d Cir.1979).
Cited · Md. Ct. Spec. App. · signal: see
See Vanskike v. ACF Industries, Inc., 665 F.2d 188, 195 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1000 , 102 S.Ct. 1632 , 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982); Capasso v. Minster Machine Co., Inc., 532 F.2d 952 (3d Cir.1976); Smith v. Verson Allsteel Press Co., 74 Ill.App.3d 818 , 30 Ill.Dec. 562 , 393 N.E.2d 598 (1979). *434 Thus, whether viewed in the context of a superseding cause or under any of the other standards employed to define “substantial change in condition” under § 402A, the issu…