138 Or. App. 1 - McCall v. Dynic USA Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2017
2 federal appellate ·
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.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) The issue in the two proceedings is identical. 2) The issue was actually litigated and was essential to a final decision on the merits in the prior proceeding. 3) The party sought to be precluded has had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on that issue. 4) The party sought to be precluded was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. 5) The prior proceeding was the type of proceeding to which th[e] court will give preclusive effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.