Heine v. Muse’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * This contention ignores the basis on which each suit is grounded, that is, the underlying obligation on which each suit rests and on which there must be judicial determination. “ * * * The judgment therein recognized the contract and the obligation thus created as valid, the amount evidenced by the notes as due and owing and execution on the mortgage as a means of securing payment. In the present case, though plaintiff’s petition merely prays for a monied judgment, it would be necessary to declare the sale a nullity in order to return the purchase price and allow damages. Therefore, the thing demanded in the present suit is a judgment decreeing the invalidity of the sale. This same thing was the demand of the earlier suit though the demand was presented in support of the sale rather than in opposition. We can only conclude that a decision on the validity of the contract of sale is the thing demanded in each of these actions, though in each petition the demand is couched in terms of the effects flowing therefrom rather than in terms of the basic question presented.” (Heine v. Muse, 206 So.2d 529, 531-532 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 268 So. 2d 74 - Nicholson v. Holloway Planting Co.

2. “"... as a review of our jurisprudence will reveal, no general rule to determine the concurrence of identity of the object demanded has been formulated. This is of no great import, however, since the question is only a practical one of comparing the thing sought to be recognized as legally extant by each suit." ( 206 So.2d at page 531 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Olsen Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Engineering Corp.

3. “The authority of the thing adjudged takes place only with respect to what was the object of the judgment. The thing demanded must be the same; the demand must be founded on the same cause of action; the demand must be between the same parties, and formed by them against each other in the same quality.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 616 So. 2d 844 - State, Dept. of Social Serv. v. Coleman