Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 S.C. 450 - Robison v. Asbill

Robison v. Asbill’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2014

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 Schleicher v. Schleicher · Hilton Head Center of South Carolina, Inc. v. Public Service Commission · Lortz v. Connell · Winborne v. Doyle · Bank of Augusta v. Satcher Motor Co.

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

  1. “[s]uits for declaratory judgments do not fall within the rule that a former judgment is conclusive not only of all matters actually adjudicated thereby, but, in addition, of all matters which could have been presented for adjudication. A declaratory judgment is not res judicata as to matters not at issue and not passed upon. It is only a bar to matters which were actually litigated, not to those that might have been litigated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 658 F. Supp. 2d 745 - PHARMACISTS MUT. INS. CO. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  2. “declaratory judgment is not res judicata as to matters not at issue and not passed upon. The doctrine is only a bar to matters which were actually litigated, not those that might have been litigated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 658 F. Supp. 2d 745 - PHARMACISTS MUT. INS. CO. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  3. “court to grant not only consequential or incidental relief, but also coercive relief where the proper grounds for such relief appear from the pleadings and proof”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 658 F. Supp. 2d 745 - PHARMACISTS MUT. INS. CO. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

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.