Gener-Villar v. Adcom Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.3d 201 · 2005
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2025
8 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 202 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · T. B. Harms Company v. Edward Eliscu and Ross Jungnickel, Inc. · Cruz v. Melecio · United States v. Moran · Burke v. Town of Walpole
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order that the presumption of the res adjudicata may be valid in another suit, it is necessary that, between the case decided by the sentence and that in which the same is invoked, there be the most perfect identity between the things, causes and persons of the litigants, and their capacity as such. It is understood that there is identity of persons whenever the litigants of the second suit are legal representatives of those who litigated in the preceding suit, or when they are jointly bound with them or by the relations established by the indivisibility of prestations among those having a right to demand them, or the obligation to satisfy the same.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If Adcom means that the entire dispute should have been aired before the Puerto Rico court, and any claims that could have been (but were not) raised in the Puerto Rico court are barred, the argument fails because Gener’s infringement claim could not have been raised in the Puerto Rico court. Gener-Villar v. Adcom Group, Inc., 417 F.3d at 207 (Emphasis Supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, ‘forecloses relitigation in a subsequent action of a fact essential for rendering a judgment in a prior action between the same parties, even when different causes of action are involved.’ ”
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.