Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

164 federal appellate · 20 district · 39 state decisions

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

1. “The general principle announced in numerous cases is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue, and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of recovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies; and even if the second suit is for a different cause of action, the right, question, or fact once so determined must, as between the same parties or their privies, be taken as conclusively established, so long as the judgment in the first suit remains unmodified. This general rule is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been established, which is to secure the peace and repose of society by the settlement of matters capable of judicial determination. Its enforcement is essential to the maintenance of social order; for the aid of judicial tribunals would not be invoked for the vindication of rights of person and property if, as between parties and their privies, conclusiveness did not attend the judgments of such tribunals in respect of all matters properly put in issue and actually determined by them.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Lynch v. Commissioner · United States v. Creek Nation

2. “We have often held that under the doctrine of res judicata a judgment entered in an action conclusively settles that action as to all matters that were or might have been litigated or adjudged therein. But a prior judgment between the parties has been held to operate as an estoppel in a suit on a cause of action different from that forming the basis for the original suit `only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' This latter aspect of res judicata is the doctrine of collateral estoppel by judgment, established as a procedure for carrying out the public policy of avoiding repetitious litigation.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lynch v. Commissioner · Clinton Engines Corp. v. Briggs & Stratton Corp.

3. ““ ‘The contention of the government seems to be that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of law; and, in a sense, that is true. It does not apply to unmixed questions of law. Where, for example, a court in deciding a case has enunciated a rule of law, the parties in a subsequent action upon a different demand are not estopped from insisting that the law is otherwise, merely because the parties are the same in both cases. But a fact, question or right distinctly adjudged in the original action cannot be disputed in a subsequent action, even though the determination was reached upon an erroneous view or by an erroneous application of the law.’ Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 569 , 71 S.Ct. 408 , 95 L.Ed. 534 ; Cf. United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 U.S. 225, 230 , 47 S.Ct. 616 , 71 L.Ed. 1013 .” 347 U.S. at page 103 , Footnote 9, 74 S.Ct. at page 422 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 174 F. Supp. 49 - Connelly v. Balkwill · Hurley v. Beech Aircraft Corp.