Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 U.S. 64 - Myers v. International Trust Co.

Myers v. International Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

263 U.S. 64 · 1923

Citation profile

158
cited by 158 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 21 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 158 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably United States v. Moser (1924), Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp. (1929)

43 federal appellate · 21 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 16 states

3101923193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Crawford v. Burke · United States v. Oregon Lumber Co. · Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

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

  1. ““In considering the operation of this judgment, it should be borne in mind, as stated by counsel, that there is a difference between the effect of a judgment as a bar or estoppel against the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim or demand, and its effect as an, estoppel in another action between the same parties upon a different claim or cause of action. In the former ease, the judgment, if rendered upon the merits, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action. . It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. * * * “ ‘But where the second 'action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. In all cases, therefore, where it is sought to apply the estoppel of a judgment rendered upon one cause of* action to matters arising in a suit upon a different cause of action, the inquiry must always be as to the point or question actually litigated and determined in the original action, not what might have been thus litigated and determined. Only upon such matters is the judgment conclusive in another action.’ ””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In other words, the exact point upon which the suit for deceit depended, to wit, the falsity of the statement, was not considered and passed on by the bankruptcy court. * * * “In the case before us, however, we find that the issue of the statement’s falsity was the same and was controlling in both suits and that because it was decided against the trust company in the first suit, the decision concludes the issue against the company in the second. It was error, therefore, to exclude from the evidence the record of the bankruptcy judgment on the composition.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An adjudication of bankruptcy, or of discharge therefrom, is a judgment in rem and is binding on, and res judicata as to all the world, only in respect of the status of the bankrupt, and is not conclusive as to the findings of fact or subsidiary questions of law on which it is based except as between parties to the proceedings or privies thereto.”
    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.