Becherer’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1996), Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States (1998)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corp. · Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc. · DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton · Burger King Corp. v. Mason
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“more than a showing of parallel interest or, even, a use of the same attorney in both suits_ The question of virtual representation is one of fact and is to be kept within “strict confines.” ... Virtual representation demands the existence of an express or implied legal relationship in which parties to the first suit are accountable to non-parties who file a subsequent suit raising identical issues.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First a non-party who has succeeded to a party’s interest in property is bound by any prior judgments against the party.... Second, a non-party who controlled the original suit will be bound by the resulting judgment.... Third, federal courts will bind a non-party whose interests were represented adequately by a party in the original suit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some cases may present substantial elements of several different grounds of non-party preclusion without clearly justifying application of any one ground. Careful application of the virtual representation label may provide a convenient means of aggregating these separate elements in special circumstances that make relitigation especially unattractive.... Close nonlitigating relationships with a party, participation, apparent acquiescence, and perhaps deliberate maneuvering to avoid the effects of the first action are among the factors to be weighed.”
2 later decisions 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.