27 Cal. App. 4th 1611 - Schultz v. Harney’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 25 Cal. 4th 1194 - Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001), 19 Cal. 4th 532 - Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 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 39 Cal. 3d 311 - Blank v. Kirwan · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 15 Cal. 3d 791 - Slater v. Blackwood · 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 - Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. · 25 Cal. 3d 891 - Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Commission
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctrine of res judicata gives conclusive effect to a final judgment rendered upon the merits by a court having jurisdic tion of the cause. (Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. (1939) 14 Cal.2d 47, 51 [ 92 P.2d 804 ].) “The rule is based upon the sound public policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair trial on an issue from again drawing it into controversy.” (Bernhard, v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 811 [ 122 P.2d 892 ].) “Restatement Second of Judgments views the doctrine as a bar or merger applicable to subsequent litigation between the same parties concerning the same controversy with very few exceptions. The Restatement’s approach is based on the assumption that there has been an opportunity in the first litigation for a fair and full hearing of the claim asserted. Once that opportunity has been afforded, the Restatement Second asserts, fairness dictates that the controversy in question be put to rest.” (Italics added.) (Nakash v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 59, 68 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 578 ].)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration or judgment, or whether the person for whom the recovery is made is a responsible adult, an infant or a person of unsound mind.”
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.