James E. Flaherty v. June Lang’s Empirical Analysis
199 F.3d 607 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Authority (2003), Brenda Curtis Alvin Williamson v. Citibank Na Citicorp North America Inc Citicorp Securities (2000)
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana · Schiro Farley Superintendent Indiana State Prison et al · Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp. · Nemaizer v. Baker · Sykes v. James
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fundamental notion ... is that an issue of law or fact actually litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior action may not be relitigated in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies. Accordingly, collateral estoppel applies when: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity for litigation in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issues previously litigated were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]pon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.”
1 later decision 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.