Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 ARK 88 - Barnett v. Isabell

Barnett v. Isabell’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2021

13 state decisions

4019841990200020102020decided

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 Davis v. Perryman · Woodward v. Blythe · Ted Saum & Company v. Swaffar · Smith v. Tipps Engineering & Supply Co.

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 trae reason for holding an issue res judicata is not necessarily for the identity or privity of the parties, but the policy of the law to end litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair trial of a question of fact from again drawing it into controversy, and that a plaintiff who deliberately selects his forum is bound by an adverse judgment therein in a second suit involving the same issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[When] liability is claimed on the ground of the alleged negligence of a servant or agent, a judgment in favor of either the master or principal on the one hand, or the servant or agent on the other, sued alone, is res judicata, or conclusive, as to such issue of negligence, in a subsequent action against the other, a derivative responsibility being present.”
    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.