Gilbert v. Ferry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1) there is identity of parties across the proceedings, 2) there was a valid, final judgment in the first proceeding, 3) the same issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in the first proceeding, and 4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Autrey v. City of Detroit · 786 F. Supp. 2d 1277 - Kolley v. ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES

2. ““(1) ‘a question of fact essential to the judgment must have been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment’; (2) ‘the same parties must have had a full [and fair] opportunity to litigate the issue;’ and (3) ‘there must be mutuality of estoppel.’ ” Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co., 469 Mich. 679, 681 , 677 N.W.2d 843 (2004) (quoting Storey v. Meijer, Inc., 431 Mich. 368 , 373 n. 3, 429 N.W.2d 169 (1988)) (alteration in original and footnote omitted). As to the mutuality requirement, the Monat court held that mutuality was not required when collateral estoppel was being used defensively.... In determining whether a party has had a full and fan- opportunity to litigate, the Monat court instructed that a court should look to the factors set forth in §§ 28-29 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. 469 Mich. at 847 n. 2, 678 N.W.2d 425 . These sections provide factors that, if found, support the finding that the re-litigation of an issue in a subsequent action between parties is not precluded even though the issue has been actually litigated and determined by a final and valid judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 469 F. Supp. 2d 466 - Hirmuz v. City of Madison Heights

3. “[ajlthough an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded in the following circumstances: (1) The party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action; or....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henney v. Rumfield (In Re Henney)