Smith v. Woosley’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.3d 428 · 2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1963 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson · Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. · Toucey v. New York Life Insurance
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]y referring to both “claims” and "issues,” ... permitted the relitigation exception to be applied to protect a federal court[] judgment that would be entitled to more than the issue-preclusion effect of collateral estoppel. A judgment adjudicating a claim could also be protected. But by insisting that the "claims or issues ... actually have been decided,” Choo, 486 U.S. at 148 [ 108 S.Ct. 1684 ], the Court was not permitting protection of the full res judicata effect of a judgment, i.e., preclusion of claims that, while not litigated, arose from the same common nucleus of operative facts as the litigated claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“new” fraud claim, or in 2005, when it finally reviewed the documents and allegedly discovered the fraud. 15 . Pertamina argues that the threshold requirements of the China Trade test should be read as coextensive with the test applicable to federal anti-suit injunctions precluding actions in state court. A federal court has power under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 , to issue an injunction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that he can (1) locate a jurisdiction in which a limitations period remains open (thereby ... escaping the preclusive effect of the Pennsylvania District Court’s [earlier] judgment [that held that his claims were time-barred]), (2) can obtain personal jurisdiction over the [adop-five parents], and (3) is otherwise then entitled to challenge the Texas decrees.”
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.