Carr v. Bett’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably State v. Peters (2011), Wamsley v. NODAK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (2008)
41 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Maryland v. Louisiana · Durfee v. Duke · Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · Baker Thomas v. General Motors Corporation · Underwriters National Assurance Company v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`generally requires every State to give to a judgment at least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State which rendered it.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“certain defenses such as lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the rendering court, fraud in the procurement of the judgment, lack of due process, satisfaction, or other grounds that make the judgment invalid or unenforceable may be raised by a party seeking to reopen or vacate a foreign judgment filed in Montana. These defenses have been recognized by other states that have held that the language similar to that found in § 25-9-503, MCA, does not allow the merits of a foreign judgment to be reopened or reexamined by the state where it is recorded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[n]either Rule 60(b) nor our Utah Foreign Judgment Act allows our Utah courts to reopen, reexamine, or alter a foreign judgment duly filed in this state, absent a showing of fraud or the lack of jurisdiction or due process in the rendering state. Only these defenses may be raised to destroy the full faith and credit owed to the foreign judgment sought to be enforced under the Foreign Judgments [sic] Act.””
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.