Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.3d 1059 - Okoro v. Bohman

Okoro v. Bohman’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.3d 1059 · 1999

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Valerie Washington (1999), Jiron v. City of Lakewood (2004)

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

570199920002010decided

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. § 1915

Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Heck v. Humphrey · Neitzke v. Williams · Hagans v. Lavine · Denton v. Hernandez

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] judgment on the merits precludes relitigation of any ground within the compass of the suit, while a jurisdictional dismissal precludes only relitigation of the ground of that dismissal... and thus has collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) effect rather than the broader res judicata effect that nowadays goes by the name of claim preclusion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the lack of federal jurisdiction [is] irrelevant to whether a suit can be maintained in a state court.” Id. Additionally, other jurisdictional defects may arguably be cured by subsequent filings that remedy the basis for an earlier dismissal. Id. (noting that a dismissal for failing to pay the proper filing fee is not subject to preclusive effect when the plaintiff subsequently files the same complaint and pays the fee). But mootness is not a defect that can be remedied, where, as here, none of the circumstances that made the case”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It may seem paradoxical to suggest that a court can render a preclusive judgment when dismissing a suit on the ground that the suit does not engage the jurisdiction of the court. But the paradox is superficial. A court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”
    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.