Witkowski v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis
173 F.3d 192 · 1999
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 815 - Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999), Curley v. Klem (2002)
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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 Allen v. McCurry · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Pledger v. Medlock · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States · Perry v. Louisiana
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical with the one presented in the later action; (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with the parly to the prior adjudication; (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in the prior adjudication; and (5) the determination of an issue in the prior case must have been essential to the previous judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1)the issue sought to be precluded is the same as the one involved in the prior action; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated; (3) the issue must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the prior judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fikes’ principal lender” unambiguously can only refer to an outside lender, that is a lender who is independent of, and thus unaffiliated with, Fikes, see infra note 16 (and the text preceding such footnote). 7 . Since, as set forth above, collateral estoppel is not applicable in the instant matter, the Court also need not formally address whether collateral estoppel can be applied to an arbitration decision. As an aside, however, if Pennsylvania law regarding collateral estop-pel applies, then "arbitration proceedings and their findings are considered final judgments for the purposes of collateral estoppel.”
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.