Houbigant Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Edwards v. HOVENSA, LLC (2007), Radil v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (2010)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · Pope v. Illinois · Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Insurance · Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical with the one presented in the later action; (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with the parly to the prior adjudication; (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in the prior adjudication; and (5) the determination of an issue in the prior case must have been essential to the previous judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[TJhe coverage issues presented turn solely on the interpretation of the underlying policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.