Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 330 Ill. 413 - Hoffman v. Hoffman

Hoffman v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
4
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 111 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 101 Ill. 2d 246 - Housing Authority for La Salle County v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n (1984), 95 Ill. 2d 423 - Spiller v. Continental Tube Co. (1983)

8 federal appellate · 111 state decisions

4201928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Watts v. Watts · Schaefer v. Wunderle · People ex rel. Mercer v. Wyanet Electric Light Co. · Sawyer v. Nelson · Umlauf v. Umlauf

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

  1. ““Where a former adjudication is relied upon as an absolute bar, there must be, as between the actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. When the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. Where some controlling fact or question material to the determination of both causes has been adjudicated in the former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction and the same fact or question is again at issue between the same parties, its adjudication in the first cause will, if properly presented, be conclusive of the same question in the later suit, irrespective of the question whether the cause of action is the same in both suits or not. This is sometimes denominated as an estoppel by verdict. (Public Utilities Com. vs. Smith, 298 Ill. 151 .) The rule in respect to the conclusiveness of the verdict and former trial between the same parties, when the judgment is used in pleading as a technical estoppel or is relied on by way of evidence as conclusive per se, is, that it must appear by the record of the prior suit that the particular controversy sought to be construed was necessarily tried and determined — that is, if the record of the former trial shows that the verdict could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter it will be”
    2 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.