Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 Ark. 126 - Alexander v. Chapman

Alexander v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Linder v. Linder (2002), Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement (2001)

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

20019891990200020102020decided

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 Tandy Corp. v. Bone · Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Wallace · Woodward v. Blythe · Sanders v. Walden · Gambill v. Stroud

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

  1. “The general rule is that, where the pleadings and issues are substantially the same, all questions which were actually presented or which could have been presented in the first appeal are barred in the second appeal. Some jurisdictions hold that only questions actually decided are barred from subsequent consideration. But Arkansas follows the general rule. We have said in a number of cases that an argument which could have been raised in the first appeal and is not made until a subsequent appeal is barred by the law of the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Finally, we point out that our reliance on the law of the case doctrine does not conflict with the general proposition that when a case is reversed and remanded for a new trial, all of the issues are opened anew. In cases in which there is a broad remand, we allow a party to amend its pleadings as necessary. Here, there was no amendment of pleadings. The law of the case doctrine prevents consideration of an argument that could have been made at the first trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “even though it is not included in the statutory definition of the standard of care, pending resolution of the issue by the Supreme Court. Ark. Model Jury Instructions (Civil), 1501 at 169 (3d ed. 1989). 19 The statutory definition creates an objective standard. Adding the language”
    1 later decision 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.