Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.3d 1202 - Gonzales v. Hernandez

Gonzales v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.3d 1202 · 1999

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2018

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

110199920002010decided

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. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Martinez v. California · Gray v. Lacke · Roy v. City of Augusta · Three Rivers Land Co., Inc. v. Maddoux

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

  1. “A federal court is required to give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it would be given under the laws of the state in which it was rendered.”) (citations omitted). Under New Mexico law, administrative adjudications can form the basis for collateral estop-pel. See Shovelin v. Cent. New Mexico Elec. Co-op., Inc., 115 N.M. 293 , 850 P.2d 996, 1001 (1993) (noting that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general weight of authority appears to be that while government employees are in privity with their employer [when sued] in their official capacities, they are not in privity [when sued] in their individual capacities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] final judgment against a plaintiff extinguishes all rights to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.”
    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.