Marange v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably DeWitt v. Harris County (1995), Seguros Tepeyac, S. A., Compania Mexicana de Seguros Generales v. Jernigan (1969)
6 federal appellate · 37 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 Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. · Southern Pac Co v. United States · Lovejoy v. Murray · United States v. California Bridge & Construction 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Was there a binding election by the appellants when they brought the prior action, that bars them from making a further election as to parties defendant? When the prior action was filed, appellants had their choice of parties defendant, the employer, the employee, or both. Since, however, both were in privity, to the extent stated above, their selection in the prior action was both binding and exclusive, when once made and final judgment obtained and satisfaction legally tendered. It was optional with them which one, or the other, or both, but did not operate to reserve to them a future action as to the one not first selected as party defendant under these facts. McNamara v. Chapman, 1923, 81 N.H. 169 , 123 A. 229 , 31 A.L.R. 188 . Public policy supports the reasoning of the several rules of law, that the prior action in this case bars the second action. Public policy demands that this be so, because it is only fair and right and just, and avoids a multiplicity of suits. Were it otherwise, the courts could be cluttered with retrials and there would be no finality to litigation... ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The appellee was not a party in haec verba in the prior case, but in accordance with these and many other authorities, he was in actuality as though he was a party defendant in the prior action. It was his negligence that supported the jury verdict in the prior action. We therefore conclude that res judicata urged in the court below was a part of the structure of the bar that protects the appellee in this appeal, similar in effect to the rule of estoppel by judgment. Technical discussion of estoppel by judgment merges into the rule of res judicata and, in the interest of brevity, we only pause to observe that in our opinion the prior judgment, * * * where the relationship was undisputed and the action was purely derivative and entirely dependent upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, * * * estops the appellants from urging their case in a second time by the pretext of avoiding the rule by naming an adventitious different defendant, whose negligence proved and supported the prior judgment."”
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.