Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 F.3d 352 - Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc.

Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

174 F.3d 352 · 1999

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
5
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (2007), Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2006)

26 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions

7801999200020102020decided

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. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Relies on Woodson v. Scott Paper Co. · Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Williams · Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. · Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · Gregory v. Chehi

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

  1. “is asserted was a party, or in privity with a party, in the prior adjudication, and that it had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question. Here our analysis leads to a far different result than that reached by the district court. VII. 45 Was Essex a Party, or in Privity with a Party, to the State Court Action? 46 It is undisputed that Essex was not a party to the state court action presided over by Judge O'Brien. The parties in that action were Maione and GCI. The question that arises now, therefore, is whether Essex was”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “voluntarily surrender[ing] their right to further review[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) whether the prior adjudication was “adequately deliberated and firm” and not “avowedly tentative;” (b) whether the parties were fully heard; (c) whether the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion; (d) whether the court’s prior decision was subject to appeal or was in fact appealed.”
    2 later decisions 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.