Kourtis’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Taylor v. Sturgell (2008), 759 F. Supp. 2d 822 - In Re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation (2010)
6 district · 4 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 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hansberry v. Lee · Richards v. Jefferson County · Martin v. Wilks · Tompkins v. Texas
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]ecent cases apply the privity concept in a much more flexible manner. . . and courts have found the existence of privity in an array of disparate circumstances summarized under the heading of `virtual representation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sandpiper Village Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida Corporation and All Others Similarly Situated Craig Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Cheryl Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Keith Ostergren, a Minor Byron Alton Susan Alton Cpc Ltd., Washington Real Estate Developer v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Lester Building Systems, a Division of Butler Manufacturing Company Lester's of Minnesota, Inc., State of Minnesota, Respondent-Amicus, and Harry A. Merlo, State of Minnesota, Insurance Company of North America Cigna Insurance Company of North America Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company, Agricultural Insurance Company National Union Fire Insurance Company Lexington Insurance Company Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant-Intervenors v. James W. Gilles Dale J. Matherly Douglas Meckling Michael L. Watts, Plaintiff-Intervenors · Adams v. California Department of Health Services“Because the concept of privity extends the reach of a judicial decision to non-parties and thereby deprives them of their own day in court, due process considerations make adequacy of representation a prerequisite to privity. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that it would violate the Due Process Clause ... to bind litigants to a judgment rendered in an earlier litigation to which they were not parties and in which they were not adequately represented.”
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.