Aubert v. Aubert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 15 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Heacock v. Heacock (1988), 113 Ohio App. 3d 374 - Phillips v. Rayburn (1996)
3 federal appellate · 15 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Transport Indemnity Company v. Seib · Eastern Marine Construction Corp. v. First Southern Leasing, Ltd. · Fay v. Parker · Munson v. Raudonis · Vratsenes v. N. H. Auto, 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is long-settled that a prior divorce decree acts as a bar to a subsequent action for divorce, as to the same ground and every issue actually litigated. However, no rule of preclusion is applicable to require that a prior divorce decree acts as a bar to a subsequent civil action in tort. . . . . . . Nor can it be argued that a civil action in tort is the same “cause of action” for res judicata purposes. Although we have emphasized that “a change in labels is not sufficient to remove the [preclusive] effect of [a] prior adjudication,” we think it clear that a civil action in tort is fundamentally different from a divorce proceeding, and that the respective issues involved are entirely distinct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Slansky v. Slansky“For it to apply in a particular proceeding, the issue subject to estoppel must be identical in each action, the first action must have resolved the issue finally on the merits, and the party to be estopped must have appeared in the first action, or have been in privity with someone who did so. Further, the party to be estopped must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and the finding must have been essential to the first judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although we have emphasized that `a change in labels is not sufficient to remove the [preclusive] effect of [a] prior adjudication,' [citation], we think it clear that a civil action in tort is fundamentally different from a divorce proceeding, and that the respective issues involved are entirely distinct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henriksen v. Cameron
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.