Bruszewski v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
181 F.2d 419 · 1950
Citation profile
136 federal appellate · 19 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. (1955)
136 federal appellate · 19 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister · Hust v. Lines · Caldarola v. Eckert
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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“merely a word used to say that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and another is close enough to include that other within the res judicata.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the achievement of substantial justice rather than symmetry is the measure of the fairness of the rules of res judicata,”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where different plaintiffs sue the same defendant in successive suits, many courts have questioned the fairness of invoking res judicata against the defendant unless a significant relationship can be found between the plaintiffs. But where, as in this case, res judicata is invoked against a plaintiff who has twice asserted essentially the same claim against different defendants, courts have, as indicated in the cases above cited, enlarged the area of res judicata beyond any definable categories of privity between the defendants____ We are in accord with this development of the law away from formalism which impedes the achievement of fair and desirable results.”
6 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.