Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 393 P.2d 893 - State v. Baker

State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
4
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2009

24 state decisions

9019641970198019902000decided

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

Applies 4 U.S.C. § 106

Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Durfee v. Duke · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

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

  1. “. . . parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once and . . . when a right or fact has been judicially determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unre-versed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “While the general rule of res judicata applies to repetitious suits involving only the same cause of action it has been employed in situations where the second action between the same parties is upon a different cause or demand. But in the latter event the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel not as to matters which might have been litigated and determined, but only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. Res judica-ta is then more accurately referred to as collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “bars a second suit between the same parties on the same subject matter resolving the same issues between the parties....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.