Armstrong v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2019
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc. · Robertson Lumber Co. v. Progressive Contractors, Inc. · Hull v. Rolfsrud · Odegaard v. Investors Oil, Inc. · Feather v. Krause
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Upon established principles, a judgment binds and is admissible against parties to the suit in which it is rendered; and privies are, of course, bound, as they are the representatives of the real parties; but beyond these a judgment in personam is evidence only of the fact of its own rendition; it may not be introduced to establish the facts upon which it has been rendered. It is an axiom of the law that no man shall be affected by proceedings to which he is a stranger — to which, if he is a party, he must be bound. He must have been directly interested in the subject-matter of the proceedings, with the right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine the witnesses on the opposite side, to control in some degree the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment. Persons not having these rights are regarded as strangers to the cause.’ ****** “ ‘In order to make a man a privy to an action he must have acquired an interest in the subject matter of the action either by inheritance, succession, or purchase from a party subsequently to the action, or he must hold property subordínate-la’””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) Was the issue which was decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? (2) Was there a final judgment on the merits? (3) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication? and (4) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted given a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue?”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gerrard v. Larsen“in this connection is one who is directly interested in the subject matter and has a right to make defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment; and that a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gerrard v. Larsen
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.