Esquire, Inc. v. Varga Enterprises, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.2d 14 · 1950
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld (1975), Union Paving Co. v. Downer Corp. (1960)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · United States v. Parker · Audi Vision Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co. · Baker v. Cummings · Cleveland v. Higgins
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Compulsory Counterclaims. A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, except that such a claim need not be so stated if at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A dismissal with prejudice is ‘as conclusive of the rights of the parties as an adverse judgment after trial, being res judicata of all questions which might have been litigated in the suit,’ 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 633, p. 62, and cases cited. So it was announced in Cleveland v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 148 F. 2d 722 , 724, in these words: ‘a dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits which will bar a second suit between the same parties for the same cause of action. United States v. Parker, 120 U.S. 89 , 7 S.Ct. 454 , 30 L.Ed. 601 ; Baker v. Cummings, 181 U.S. 117 , 21 S.Ct. 578 , 45 L.Ed. 776 . The cause of action which thus becomes res judicata comprehends not only what was actually decided but all matters which might have been decided. Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 289 U.S. 620 , 53 S. Ct. 706 , 77 L.Ed. 1405 .’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. Shannon
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.