Morris v. Gressette’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 482 · 29 U.S.C. § 483 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 2 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hansberry v. Lee · Hicks v. Miranda · Allen v. State Board of Elections
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no dispute with the proposition that, contrary to the earlier view based on a mechanical application of the principle of mutuality, the modern rule is that a valid judgment in a prior suit, involving the same issues may, by way of collateral estoppel be asserted in a subsequent action by a stranger to the first suit against one who was a party or, in privity with a party, in that earlier action. And this is the rule of our Circuit, as stated in a number of decisions, .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rollins v. May“rapid method of rendering a new state election law enforceable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morris v. Gressette
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.