Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 620 · 1933
Citation profile
450 federal appellate · 46 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 911 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Montana v. United States (1979), Commissioner v. Sunnen (1948)
450 federal appellate · 46 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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
reviewedTait v. Western Maryland Ry. Co. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · United States v. Moser · Graham v. Goodcell
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 911 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The scope of the estoppel of a judgment depends upon whether the question arises in a subsequent action between the same parties upon the same claim or demand or upon a different claim or demand. In the former case a judgment upon the merits is an absolute bar to the subsequent action.' (Italics supplied.) Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 289 U.S. 620 , 623, 53 S.Ct. 706, 707, 77 L.Ed. 1405. The reason for this is that a judgment, if rendered upon the merits, is conclusive not only as to all matters which were decided, but as to all matters which might have been decided. * * *”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The public policy upon which the rule [res judicata] is founded has been said to apply with equal force to the sovereign’s demand and the claims of private citizens. Alteration of the law in this respect is a matter for the law-making body rather than the courts. [Citing case.] It cannot be supposed that Congress was oblivious of the scope of the doctrine, and in the absence of a clear declaration of such purpose, we will not infer from the annual nature of the exaction an intent to abolish the rule in this class of cases.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The petitioner may not escape the effect of the earlier judgment as an estoppel by showing an inadvertent or erroneous concession as to the materiality, bearing or significance of the facts, provided, as is the case here, the facts and the questions presented on those facts were before the court when it rendered its judgment, (citation omitted) The very right now contested arising out of the same facts appearing in this record, was adjudged in the prior proceeding.”
3 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.