Hackley v. Hackley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 32 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general principle announced in numerous cases is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of recovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies; and even if the second suit is for a different cause of action, the right, question or fact once so determined must, as between the same parties or their privies, be taken as conclusively established, so long as the judgment in the first suit remains unmodified.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Taleb v. Kramer (In re Kramer) · McCallum v. Pixley (In re Pixley)

2. “`not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pierson Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co. · In Re MCI Telecommunications Complaint

3. “The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to `relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pierson Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co. · In Re MCI Telecommunications Complaint