Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 MASS 211 - Pesce v. Brecher

Pesce v. Brecher’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
7
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Company (1971), New England Gas & Electric Ass'n v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. (1953)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

10019391940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Merrimac Chemical Co. v. Moore · McCarthy v. William H. Wood Lumber Co. · Giedrewicz v. Donovan · Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bank · Inhabitants of Sturbridge v. Franklin

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

  1. “It is elementary and fundamental that every individual is entitled to his own day in court in which to assert his own rights or to defend against their infringement. The present plaintiff was not a party to the former action. He is not in privity with any party in the sense that his rights are derived from one who was a party. His cause of action is and always has been his own. It is in no way derived from his employer, who was a party. The relation of employer and employee, in and of itself, does not confer upon the employer any power to represent or to bind the employee in litigation. That the plaintiff testified as a witness in the former action is immaterial. He had no control over the conduct of the trial. He could not cross-examine opposing witnesses. The essential elements of an estoppel by judgment are lacking.”
    5 later decisions 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.