Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 Ky. 587 - McKenzie v. Hinkle

McKenzie v. Hinkle’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
November 1984
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 1984

11 state decisions

60193819401950196019701980decided

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 Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. Albritton · Amburgey v. Adams · Schmidt v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railway Co. · Berry v. Irwin · Ralph Wolff & Sons v. New Zealand Insurance Co. of Auckland

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

  1. ““The doctrine of res judicata is firmly established in the law. Its purpose when first promulgated in the Dutchess of Kingston case, 20 Howard St. Tr. 355, was to provide a rule whereby there should be an end to litigation, and that questions once decided between the same parties, or their prives, should forever thereafter remain decided, and that all matters that could have been litigated in the action wherein the estopping judgment was rendered must be brought forward therein. But, in order for the judgment to have that effect the issues and the parties should be the same, but within that requirement it was early held — and the rule firmly established — that the word ‘parties’ within that requirement was not necessarily confined'to actual parties in the litigation in which the judgment was rendered, but that the term also embraced others strangers to the litigation, who were not formal plaintiffs or defendants, but who by their conduct bring themselves in such relationship to the litigation as to become bound by the judgment. Such active participation in the litigation producing that result is clearly set forth aud pointed out in the text in 34 C. J. p. 1006, secs. 1426 and 1427.””
    2 later decisions 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.