Walzer v. Walzer’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Sanchione v. Sanchione (1977), Misinonile v. Misinonile (1983)
4 district · 39 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 Stoll v. Gottlieb · Durfee v. Duke · People of State of New York Halvey v. Halvey · Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt · Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]omity is a flexible doctrine, the application of which rests in the discretion of the state where enforcement of a foreign order is sought. Because comity is a flexible doctrine, its contents are peculiarly subject to the dictates of public policy and considerations of fairness to litigants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen the applicable law of a foreign state is not shown to be otherwise, we presume it to be the same as our own”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e note that the terms res judicata and collateral estoppel refer to the concepts of claim preclusion or issue preclusion respectively. Both claim preclusion and issue preclusion express no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest. . . . Although claim preclusion and issue preclusion often appear to merge into one another in practice, analytically they are regarded as distinct. Claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . Issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.”
1 later decision 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.