No. 96-5788’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
31 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co. (1999), 28 F. Supp. 2d 901 - In Re MobileMedia Securities Litigation (1998)
31 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“could properly be the grounds for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One of the prerequisites to the application of res judicata in New Jersey, as elsewhere, is the existence of a prior judgment that is final, valid, and on the merits.... Although the Entire Controversy Doctrine is not identical to traditional res judicata principles, defendants have pointed to no authority for the proposition that some measure of finality is any less necessary for application of the Doctrine than it is for application of res judicata.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In order for Colorado River abstention to be appropriate, there must be parallel state and federal litigations that are truly duplicative. When the two cases fit this requirement, the district court, in its discretion, may abstain only if the several Colorado River factors clearly weigh in favor of abstention because the federal courts have a virtually unflagging obli gation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.”
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.