Hurley v. Beech Aircraft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 335-336 , 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1085-1086 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) is also pertinent: “We agree * * * that the nonexistence of a fact may be established by a judgment no less than its existence; that, in other words, a party may be precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from attempting a second time to prove a fact that he sought unsuccessfully to prove in a prior action. * * * “ * * *. That doctrine [collateral estoppel] makes conclusive in subsequent proceedings only determinations of fact, and mixed fact and law, that were essential to the decision.” Later in the same opinion, the court makes the following statement: “The normal rule is that a prior judgment need be given no conclusive effect at all unless it establishes one of the ultimate facts in issue in the subsequent proceeding.” Id. at 338 , 77 S.Ct. at 1087 . We have held that even if a subsequent action is a different cause of action, a right, question, or fact determined in the prior action must, as between the same parties, be taken as conclusively established, so long as the judgment in the prior action remains unmodified.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Waggoner v. General Motors Corp.