379 F. Supp. 2d 1117 - Lance v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) The party against whom estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) There was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; [and] (4) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lance v. Dennis

2. “Article V, § 44 of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted in Salazar, violated [the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution] by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barber v. Ritter

3. “when a state government litigates a matter of public concern, that state's citizens will be deemed to be in privity with the government for preclusion purposes,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mo's Express, LLC v. Sopkin