Pomeroy v. Waitkus’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 49 district · 226 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 299 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1979), Metropolitan Gas Repair Service, Inc. v. Kulik (1980)
18 federal appellate · 49 district · 226 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 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
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 299 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? Second, was there a final judgment on the merits? Third, was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication? And, fourth, did the party against whom the plea is asserted have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior adjudication?”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“holds that the final decision of a court on an issue actually litigated and determined is conclusive of that issue in any subsequent suit.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the issue is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) the party against whom estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.”
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.