Estevez v. Nabers’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.2d 321 · 1955
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc. (1988), In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions (1973)
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 Calvin R. Morgan v. Riverside Mills Company, C. A. Folk, T. I. Ward · Gould v. Evansville and Crawfordsville Rr Co · Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors · Hatchitt v. United States
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and should not bar this subsequent action. The dismissal of the first action can be ascribed to a lack of jurisdiction or to the absence of a substantive claim; actually the ground of dismissal amounted to both of these. But even if regarded as a decision not on the merits, the first action precludes a new adjudication of the question already decided. . . . 7 The only difference between Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint in 71-1235-W and the present case is an additional sentence to the effect that he”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although some courts seem to have held that the mere existence of facts in the second action not present in the first makes the principle of res judicata inapplicable, e. g., Pippin v. United States, 74 App.D.C. 131 , 121 F.2d 98 , we believe this criterion is clearly incorrect. See Hatchitt v. United States, 9 Cir., 158 F.2d 754 ; Buchanan v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 728 ; The B. & B. No. 10, 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 704 ; “Developments in the Law —Res Judicata,” 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818 , 826. We recognize, on the other hand, that in some situations a second action is not barred by a former judgment when the complaints are identical save for the inclusion of certain additional facts in the second complaint. For example, if the complaint in the later action contains further allegations, the omission of which made the complaint in the first action demurrable, the judgment in the first action is not a bar to the second action, even though the plaintiff has failed to avail himself of permission to amend. 'X* -Jr •X1 -X" 'X* The cardinal principle is that the second action is precluded unless the new allegations supply a material deficiency of the complaint in the first action. 219 F.2d at 323 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether the first decision was on the merits or not is not important here, since we regard the two actions as not materially different, and the question actually decided in the first action disposes of the present one as well.”
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.