Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 Va. App. 434 - Highsmith v. Commonwealth

25 Va. App. 434 - Highsmith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016

19 state decisions

110199720002010decided

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 United States v. Scott · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · United States v. Oppenheimer · Rosenberg v. United States · Sims v. Gardner

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

  1. “Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the “considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.” Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667, 670 , 202 S.E.2d 917, 920 (1974) (citation omitted). Res judicata literally means a “matter adjudged,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1174 (5th ed.1979), and it precludes relitigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent jurisdiction. It rests upon the principle that a person should not be required to relitigate the same matter a second time “with the same person or another so identified in interest with such person that he represents the same legal right, precisely the same question, particular controversy, or issue, which has been necessarily tried and fully determined, upon the merits, by a court of competent jurisdiction....” Patterson v. Saunders, 194 Va. 607, 614 , 74 S.E.2d 204, 209 , cert. denied, 345 U.S. 998 , 73 S.Ct. 1132 , 97 L.Ed. 1405 (1953). In short, once a matter or issue has been adjudicated, it may be relied upon as conclusive between the parties, or their privies, in any subsequent suit.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A person seeking to assert res judicata as a defense must establish identity of: (1) the remedies sought; (2) the cause of action; (3) the parties; and (4) the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. [Commonwealth ex. rel. Gray v.] Johnson, 7 Va.App. [614,] 618, 376 S.E.2d [787,] 789 [(1989)]. Further, to assert this defense, the party must establish that "the judgment in the former action [was] rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction." Simmons v. Commonwealth, 252 Va. 118, 120 , 475 S.E.2d 806, 807 (1996) (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"` Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine founded upon the considerations of public policy which favor certainty in the establishment of legal relations, demand an end to litigation, and seek to prevent harassment of parties.'" Res judicata, which literally means a "matter adjudged," precludes relitigation of a cause of action once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.