Todhunter v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 182 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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . A former judgment operates as a bar against a second action upon the same cause, but in a later action upon a different claim or cause of action, it operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (Italics added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nev-Cal Electric Securities Co. v. Imperial Irr. Dist. · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District

2. ““In Todhunter v. Smith, supra, the court ruled: ‘By virtue of the doctrine of res judicata the final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction necessarily affirming the existence of any fact is conclusive evidence of the existence of that fact when it is again in issue in subsequent litigation between the same parties in the same or any other court. The facts decided in the first suit cannot be disputed or relitigated although the later suit is upon a different cause of action. [Citations.] The doctrine of res judicata has a double aspect. A former judgment operates as a bar against a second action upon the same cause, but in a later action upon a different claim or cause of action, it operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.’ (219 Cal. at pp. 694-695.) The trial court could not directly disregard this doctrine because it believed the earlier case was improperly decided. It is concluded that it cannot do so indirectly for the same reasons. “However, the logical application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel reveals a possible flaw in plaintiff’s case. As noted in Sutphin v. Speik, supra [ 15 Cal.2d 195 ( 99 P.2d 652 , 101 P.2d 497 )]: “. . . the rule goes further. If the matter was within the scope of the action, related to the subject-matter and relevant to the issues, so that it could have been raised, the judgment is conclusive on it despite the fact”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 Cal. 2d 315 - Zaragosa v. Craven · 16 Cal. App. 3d 1 - Estate of Cates

3. ““A former judgment operates as a bar against a second action upon the same cause, but in a later action upon a different claim or cause of action, it operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action. . . . The final adjudication of an inferior court made within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive upon a higher court in a subsequent action. ... In the superior court action herein, the right of plaintiff Todhunter to recover for personal injuries sustained by him in the automobile collision depended upon his establishing the negligence of appellant Smith and his own freedom from contributory negligence. These are the identical issues which were involved in the municipal court action, wherein Todhunter sought damages for injury to his automobile truck sustained in the same collision upon allegations set forth by him ‘by way of cross-complaint, ’ which in legal effect constituted a counterclaim. By the judgment of the municipal court he was denied recovery. Smith having advanced the plea of res judicata by his answer in the superior court action herein, Todhunter cannot relitigate these issues.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 Cal. App. 2d 746 - Secrest v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.