Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 371 F.3d 1285 - Norfolk Southern Corporation v. Chevron Chemical

Norfolk Southern Corporation v. Chevron Chemical’s Empirical Analysis

371 F.3d 1285 · 2004

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Blunt v. Lower Merion School District (2014), Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc. (2009)

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

230200420102020decided

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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. Armour & Co. · United States v. City of Miami · Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc. · Astron Industrial Associates, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.

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

  1. “"In determining the res judicata effect of an order of dismissal based upon a settlement agreement, we should also attempt to effectuate the parties' intent. * * * Consequently, the scope of the preclusive effect of the 1977 Dismissal should not be determined by the claims specified in the original complaint, but instead by the terms of the Settlement * Agreement, as interpreted according to traditional principles of contract law."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “When a defendant signs a settlement agreement stating that only some claims will be precluded in the future, it is as if the defendant is preemptively waiving any potential res judicata defense he would have had as a result of the dismissal to which the parties consent under the agreement. Thus, [a] ... settlement agreement may fairly be read as waiving certain res judicata rights to which the dismissal would otherwise give rise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “based upon the parties' stipulation, unlike a judgment imposed at the end of an adversarial proceeding, receives its legitimating force from the fact that the parties consented to it.”
    1 later decision 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.