Wolstein v. Docteroff’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 210 · 1997
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably McClellan v. Cantrell (2000), Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar (2001)
11 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 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 Grogan v. Garner · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green · Heiser v. Woodruff · In the Matter of Michael VAN HORNE. Margaret CASPERS, Appellee, v. Michael VAN HORNE, Appellant · First Jersey National Bank v. Brown
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the one involved in the prior action; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated; (3) the issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the prior judgment.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party such as Docteroff, who deliberately prevents resolution of a lawsuit, should be deemed to have actually litigated an issue for purposes of collateral estoppel application.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]pparently ... realized the meritlessness of his position and decided to frustrate orderly litigation by willfully obstructing discovery.”
3 later decisions 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.