Foltz v. Pullman, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Grimes v. Donald (1996), In Re Estate of Ellis (1975)
4 district · 18 state decisions
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 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Coca Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. · Tyndall v. Tyndall · 123 N.J. Super. 364 - Continental Can Co. v. Hudson Foam · General Motors Corporation v. Morgan
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“draws its strength not so much from the private advantage of the party seeking to invoke it, but its roots lie in the principle that public policy and welfare require a definite end to litigation when each of the parties has a full, free and untram-melled opportunity of presenting all of the facts pertinent to the controversy. The primary object of res judicata (public policy) is based upon the maxim republi-cae ut sit finis litium — it concerns the commonwealth that there be a limit to litigation. ¾: ⅜ * sfc ⅜? * But assuming the identity of issues, we are of the opinion that a plaintiff who deliberately selects his forum and there unsuccessfully presents his proofs, is bound by such adverse judgment in a second suit involving all the identical issues already decided. The requirements of mutuality must yield to public policy. To hold otherwise would be to allow repeated litigation of identical questions, expressly adjudicated, and to allow a litigant having lost on a question of fact to re-open and re-try all the old issues each time he can obtain a new adversary not in privity with his former one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“or some other party” is the successor. Gale's opening brief makes it clear that Gale is relying on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in its motion. To apply these doctrines requires the Court to adopt the results of the four prior decisions which clearly held that Keene is the successor to BEH and KBPC. Thus, to reach a decision as to Gale on these bases requires a decision as to Keene. In a footnote to their Memorandum, Keene states that”
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.