Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 U.S. 191 - Reed v. Allen

Reed v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

286 U.S. 191 · 1932

Citation profile

491
cited by 491 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

141 federal appellate · 42 district · 115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 491 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie (1981), Fisher v. United States (1946)

141 federal appellate · 42 district · 115 state decisions — followed in 22 states

11801932194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedAllen v. Reed (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Throckmorton · United States v. Mayer · Russell v. Place · Chicago Ry Co v. Schendel Same · United States v. Moser

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

  1. “"Itlhe predicament in which respondent finds himself is of his own making.... [We} cannot be expected, for his sole relief, to upset the general and well-established doctrine of res judicata, conceived in the light of the maxim that the interest of the state requires that there be an end to litigation-a maxim which comports with common sense as well as public policy."”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A system of procedure is perverted from its proper function when it multiplies impediments to justice without the warrant of clear necessity. By the judgment about to be rendered, the respondent, caught in a mesh of procedural complexities, is told that there was only one way out of them, and this a way he failed to follow. Because of that omission he is to be left ensnared in the web, the processes of the law, so it is said, being impotent to set him free. I think the paths to justice are not so few and narrow. * * * ” (Mr. Justice Cardozo dissenting in Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191 , 209, 52 S.Ct. 532 , 537, 76 L.Ed. 1054 .)”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““These decisions constitute applications of the general and well settled rule that a judgment, not set aside on appeal or otherwise, is equally effective as an estoppel upon the points decided, whether the decision be right or wrong. Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226, 249-250 [ 22 L.Ed. 254 ]; Wilson’s Executor v. Deen, 121 U.S. 525, 534 [ 7 S.Ct. 1004 , 30 L.Ed. 980 ] ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Schendel, 270 U.S. 611, 617 [ 46 S.Ct. 420 , 70 L.Ed. 757 ]. The indulgence of a contrary view would result in creating elements of uncertainty and confusion and in undermining the conclusive character of judgments, consequences which it was the very purpose of the doctrine of res judicata to avert.””
    4 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.