26 Cal. 3d 397 - Younger v. Jensen’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Costantini v. Trans World Airlines (1982), Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel & Casino Inc. (1991)
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 98 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 717 · 15 U.S.C. § 717C · 15 U.S.C. § 717F · 15 U.S.C. § 717S · 15 U.S.C. § 719 (Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976) · 15 U.S.C. § 719E
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the very same facts and no others are involved in the second case, ... the prior judgment will be conclusive as to the same legal issues which appear, assuming no intervening doctrinal change. But if the relevant facts in the two cases are separable, even though they be similar or identical, collateral estoppel does not govern the legal issues which recur in the second case. Thus, the second proceeding may involve an instrument or transaction identical with, but in a form separable from, the one dealt with in the first proceeding. In that situation, a court is free in the second proceeding to make an independent examination of the legal matters at issue. It may then reach a different result or, if consistency in decision is considered just and desirable, reliance may be placed upon the ordinary rule of stare decisis. Before a party can invoke the collateral estoppel doctrine in these circumstances, the legal matter raised in the second proceeding must involve the same set of events or documents and the same bundle of legal principles that contributed to the rendering of the first judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] federal court judgment has the same effect in the courts of this state as it would in a federal court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A federal judgment 'has the same effect in the courts of this state as it would have in a federal court'”
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.