Kinslow v. Ratzlaff’s Empirical Analysis
158 F.3d 1104 · 1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Walczyk v. Rio (2007), Novitsky v. City of Aurora (2007)
6 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · Simuel v. United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for issue preclusion to apply to this case, Defendants, Officers Ratzlaff and Serrate, who are the arresting officers in Plaintiffs criminal proceeding, must have been parties to that criminal proceeding or in privity with the parties in that action. Clearly, the officers were not parties to Plaintiffs criminal proceeding. Plaintiffs opponent was the State of Oklahoma. Officers Ratzlaff and Serrate had no control over the prosecution of the criminal case and their role ‘at the [preliminary] hearing was simply that of a witness for the prosecution.’ The officers ‘could not call witnesses, ... direct the examination of the State’s witnesses, ... [or] choose the counsel who represented the State at the suppression hearing. Nor could the officers appeal the ruling once it was made.’ Although Oklahoma courts have not addressed the precise problem that confronts us, we also believe that, under Oklahoma’s definition of privity, the officers were not in privity with the State of Oklahoma. The officers are being sued in their individual capacity in this action and their personal interests, which were not at stake in the criminal proceeding, differ from Oklahoma’s interests. ‘The mere fact that [the officers] happened] to be interested in a particular question, or in proving a state of facts as may have been presented in [the prior action,] ... does not establish that they were in privity with any of the parties in that action.’ Because the officers were neither parties nor pr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“under Oklahoma's definition of privity, the officers were not in privity with the State of Oklahoma. The officers are being sued in their individual capacity in this action and their personal interests, which were not at stake in the criminal proceeding, differ from Oklahoma's interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While a government official sued in his official capacity may be in privity with the government, we are aware of no case in which a person, sued individually, has been precluded from litigating an issue because of a ruling adverse to the state in a prior criminal proceeding.”
1 later decision 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.