Smith v. Schweigert’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Hollister v. Forsythe (1996), State Ex Rel. Harlem Irrigation District v. Montana Seventeenth Judicial District Court (1995)
36 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 Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Brault v. Smith · In Re the Marriage of Stout · Moore v. Capitol Gas Corporation
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. The issue has been decided in a prior adjudication and is identical to the one presented. “2. A final judgment on the merits was issued. “3. The party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or privity to the party in the prior adjudication.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Collateral estoppel is a form of res judicata. Quite simply, the doctrine ‘precludes relitigation of issues actually litigated and determined in a prior suit.’ Lawlor v. National Screen Service (1955), 349 U.S. 322 , 75 S.Ct. 865 , 99 L.Ed 1122. It differs from res judicata, in that res judicata bars the same parties from relitigating the same cause of action, while collateral estoppel bars the same parties, or their privies, from relitigating issues which have been decided with respect to a different cause of action. Brault v. Smith (1984), 209 Mont. 21 , 679 P.2d 236 .””
2 later decisions 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.