Peter F. Schabarum v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2015
4 district ·
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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Foman v. Davis · Buckley v. Valeo · Montana v. United States · Reynolds v. Sims
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although “privity” is not a clearly defined concept under California law, it generally refers to persons who are so identified in interest with the parties to the original action that it is proper to bind them along with the parties to the original litigation. California courts look to whether the relationship between the party in the earlier suit and the nonparty bringing the current suit is “sufficiently close” to justify preclusion of the latter. Due process requires at a minimum that the party to be estopped must have had an identity or community of interest with, and adequate representation by, the losing party in the first action, and should reasonably have expected to be bound by the prior adjudication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The nonparty “had received actual notice at the time of the litigation that his interests were being litigated”; 3. The nonparty “ ‘had in reality contested the prior action even if he did not make a formal appearance,’ such as where the nonparty had a financial interest in and ‘power to control’ the litigation of the prior action”; and 3. The “unsuccessful party in the first action could ‘fairly be treated as acting in a representative’ capacity for the nonparty now being precluded.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there [was] a considerable risk that the Oklahoma Legislature either did not realize that its action would have the effect of rendering 15-year-old defendants death eligible or did not give the question the serious consideration that would have been reflected in the explicit choice of some minimum age for death eligibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Friedman v. Jones
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.