Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 W. Va. 584 - Conley v. Spillers

171 W. Va. 584 - Conley v. Spillers’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 126 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 194 W. Va. 3 - State v. Miller (1995), 177 W. Va. 734 - National Mutual Insurance v. McMahon & Sons, Inc. (1987)

5 federal appellate · 126 state decisions

7401983199020002010decided

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 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hansberry v. Lee · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Collateral estoppel is designed to foreclose relitigation of issues in a second suit which have actually been litigated in the earlier suit even though there may be a difference in the cause of action between the parties of the first and second suit.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident thereto and coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action,”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Whether a stranger to the first action can assert collateral estoppel in the second action depends on several general inquiries: Whether the issues presented in the present case are the same as presented in the earlier case; whether the controlling facts or legal principles have changed substantially since the earlier case; and, whether there are special circumstances that would warrant the conclusion that enforcement of the judgment would be unfair.”
    6 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.