Rachal v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
435 F.2d 59 · 1970
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnell (1995)
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Scalza v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co.
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * a party who has had one fair and full opportunity to prove a claim and has failed in that effort, should not be permitted to go to trial on the merits of that claim a second time. Both orderliness and reasonable time saving in judicial administration require that this be so unless some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant dictates a different result in the circumstances of a particular case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would be anomalous to hold that the appellants have lost their right to a trial by jury on the issue of whether they are liable to respond in damages for violations of the security laws because of a prior adverse determination by the district court of the same issue in an action in which their present adversary was not a party and which arose in a different context from the present action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The party against whom the estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with the party in the prior litigation. (2) There must have been a final determination of the merits of the issues to be collaterally estopped. (3) The issues decided in the prior action must have been necessary, material, and essential to the prior case. (4) The party against whom the estoppel is to be applied must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues. (5) The issues in the prior litigation must be identical to the issues sought to be estopped.”
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.