Vinson v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.2d 772 · 1930
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 1984 · most notably Veiser v. Armstrong (1984), 225 F. Supp. 80 - Rhodes v. Meyer (1963)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Heckman v. United States · Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. · United States v. California & Oregon Land 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A judgment or decree upon the merits concludes the parties and their privies as to all the media concludendi or grounds for asserting the right known when the suit was brought. * * * “A party seeking to enforce a cause of action must present to the court, either by pleading or proof or both, all the grounds upon which such cause of action is predicated. He is not at liberty to split up his demand and prosecute it by piecemeal or to present a part of the grounds upon which such cause of action is founded and leave the rest to be presented in a subsequent suit if the first fails. * * * “In United States v. California & O. Land Co. [ 192 U.S. 355 , 24 S.Ct. 266 , 48 L.Ed. 476 ], the United States sought to establish its title to certain lands and to have the patents for such lands declared void on the ground that such lands were within an Indian reservation and reserved from the operation of the grant. The Land Company pleaded in bar a final decree adverse to the United States in a former suit brought by the United States to establish its title, and to cancel such patents on the ground that the grant had been forfeited for non-compliance with the conditions of the grant. The court said: “ ‘The best, that can be said, * * * to distinguish the two suits, is that now the United States puts forward a new ground for its prayer. Formerly it sought to avoid the patents by way of forfeiture. Now it seeks the same conclusion by a different means, — that is to say, by evidence that the l”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A party seeking to enforce a cause of action must present to the court, either by pleading or proof or both, all the grounds upon which such cause of action is predicated. He is not at liberty to split up his demand and prosecute it by piecemeal or to present a part of the grounds upon which such cause of action is founded and leave the rest to be presented in a subsequent suit if the first fails.””
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.