Lober v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.2d 714 · 1969
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Jackson v. District of Columbia (1980)
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. · Hart Steel Company v. Railroad Supply Company · Davis v. Davis · Loughran v. Loughran
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We need not, however, enter the debate on the relative merits of mutuality and nonmutuality, or explore the question whether either deserves exclusivity in this jurisdiction. For mutuality is not iron-bound in the law of res judicata but, like so many other broad legal concepts, is subject to well defined exceptions. One such exception obtains where a defendant's responsibility is derivative or secondary and it has been judicially determined that the situation is lacking in one or more of the conditions giving rise to it. Consequently it is settled that a judgment exonerating a servant or agent from liability bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action against the master or principal based solely on respondeat superior. And conversely, it is the prevailing rule in the federal and the state courts that a judgment excusing the master or principal from liability on the ground that the servant or agent was not at fault forecloses a subsequent suit against the latter on the same claim."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The true ground upon which a former judgment, in a case like this, should be allowed to operate as a bar to a second action is not res judicata, or technical estoppel, because the parties are not the same, and there is no such privity between them as is necessary for the application of that doctrine; but that in such cases, on grounds of public policy, the principle of estoppel should be extended, so as to embrace within the estoppel of a judgment, persons who are not, strictly speaking, either parties or privies. It is rested upon the wholesome principle which allows every litigant one opportunity to try his case on the merits, but limits him, in the interest of the public, to one such opportunity." 417 F.2d at 719 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Medearis v. Miller“If it were possible that the employer’s exoneration by the [first] judgment came in consequence of a finding that the employee acted beyond the scope of his employment, the judgment would not merit eonclusiveness here.”
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.