Vines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While complete identity of all parties is not required, the party against whom the collateral estoppel would be applied generally must either have been a party, or privy to a party, in the prior litigation. See Terrell v. DeConna., 877 F.2d 1267,1270 (5th Cir.1989). [[Image here]] ... Privity is a “legal conclusion that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and the non-party is sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion.” Southwest Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int’l Airlines, 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.1977). Federal courts have consistently held that a non-party to an action is still bound by and entitled to the benefits of a judgment as though it were a party if it was represented in the original action. See Meza v. Gen. Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1266-67 (5th Cir.1990).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 138 So. 3d 801 - Chastant v. Chastant

2. “[w]hile complete identity of all parties is not required, the party against whom the collateral estoppel would be applied generally must either have been a party, or privy to a party, in the prior litigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 779 F. Supp. 2d 577 - Limon v. BERRYCO BARGE LINES, LLC