Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 F.3d 420 - Leather v. Eyck

Leather v. Eyck’s Empirical Analysis

180 F.3d 420 · 1999

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
January 2020
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon (2002), Gilles v. Davis (2005)

30 federal appellate · 7 district ·

6801999200020102020decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Heck v. Humphrey · Allen v. McCurry · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation

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

  1. “applies when (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was [a] full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party ..., whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same. The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated by the same parties in a future lawsuit.”
    4 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.