Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 CONN 436 - State v. Ellis

State v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

347
cited by 347 later decisions
3
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 324 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 347 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners (1991), Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. (1997)

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 324 state decisions

178019851990200020102020decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Furman v. Georgia · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio

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

  1. “express no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest.”
    23 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, [provides that] a former judgment on a claim, if rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action on the same claim. A judgment is final not only as to every matter which was offered to sustain the claim, but also as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 , 352-53 , 24 L.Ed. 195 (1976); 1 Restatement (Second), [supra] §§ 19, 25; James Hazard, Civil Procedure (2d Ed.) § 11.3.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between the same parties upon a different claim.”
    4 later decisions 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.