Elia v. Pifer’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes (2004), Garcia v. General Motors Corp. (1999)
38 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 108
Relies on Orme School v. Reeves · Hearn v. Rhay · United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn · Chaney Building Co. v. City of Tucson · Throop v. FE Young and Company
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [whether the] assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative act, such as filing suit, by the asserting party; (2) [whether] through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) [whether] application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded ... [when] (1) The party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action; or (3) A new determination of the issue is warranted by differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed in the two courts or by factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rationale [for the rule] is that parties have already been given the chance to appeal from the order that forms the basis for contempt. Enforcement of such orders cannot be held up by contempt appeals; where review of a contempt order is needed, it must be by the speedier route of special action petition.”
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.