Martin v. Ring’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 20 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Willhauck v. Halpin (1991), Miles v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1992)
12 federal appellate · 20 district · 68 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 Montana v. United States · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 40 Cal. 3d 202 - Clemente v. State of California · Pigeon's Case · Fidler v. E. M. Parker 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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he guiding principle ... is whether the party against whom it is asserted 'lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue ....'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of the doctrine [collateral estoppel] is to conserve judicial resources, to prevent the unnecessary costs associated with multiple litigation, and to ensure the finality of judgments.” Martin v. Ring, 401 Mass. 59, 61 , 514 N.E.2d 663 (Mass.1987), referenced in In re Am. Bridge Prod., Inc., 328 B.R. at 351 .”
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.