Bannon v. Bannon’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently January 2000 · most notably Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1942), Rager v. McCloskey (1953)
6 federal appellate · 69 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 Rudd v. . Cornell · Williams v. . Barkley · Riggs v. . Pursell · Marshall v. . Meech · Fischer v. Fischer
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The words ‘final judgment’] may include any judicial decision upon a question of fact or law which is not provisional and subject to change and modification in the future by the same tribunal____ The essential element of a conclusive adjudication is finality of the proceedings. A judicial decision can constitute a conclusive adjudication of [a] question of fact or law only when rendered in a proceeding in which a court had jurisdiction to render an irrevocable and final decision upon such question. ‘The effect of an adjudication ... must always depend upon the nature of the proceeding.’ Everett v. Everett, 180 N.Y. 452, 461 , 73 N.E. 231, 233 .... The test then is not the form of the decision, but the nature of the proceedings in which the adjudication is made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““This court has said that it is ‘only a final judgment upon the merits, which prevents further contest upon the same issue, and becomes evidence in another action between the same parties or their privies. Until final judgment is reached the proceedings are subject to change and modification; are imperfect, and inchoate, and can avail nothing as a bar, or as evidence, until the judgment, with its verity as a record, settles finally and conclusively the questions at issue. An interlocutory order is not such a judgment. It is not a judgment at all.’ ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“can never result in a decision of the issues involved in the controversy, since it is always predicated on the fact that the defaulting party has lost the opportunity to present the issue to the court, and the question always is whether the party applying should be permitted to plead.”
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.