Beegan v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably DeLeon v. Slear (1992), McAlister v. Slosberg (In Re Slosberg) (1998)
3 federal appellate · 7 district · 44 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 Goldstein v. United States · Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine · Woolley v. Henderson · Cianchette v. Verrier · Kradoska v. Kipp
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the same parties, or their privies, are involved; 2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action; and 3) the matters presented for decision were, or might have been, litigated in the prior action.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“the measure of a cause of action is the aggregate of connected operative facts that can be handled together conveniently for purposes of trial. A prior judgment bars a later suit arising out [of] the same aggregate of operative facts even though the second suit relies on a legal theory not advanced in the first case, seeks different relief than that sought in the first case, and involves evidence different from the evidence relevant to the first case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The doctrine of res judicata — literally, “thing adjudged” — is a court-made collection of rules designed to ensure that the same matter will not be litigated more than once. ... Unlike the related rule of collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion,” which merely prevents the reopening in a second action of an issue of fact actually litigated and decided in an earlier case, the doctrine of bar, or “claim preclusion,” prohibits relitigation of an entire “cause of action” between the same parties or their privies, once a valid final judgment has been rendered in an earlier suit on the same cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Morton v. Schneider · Wong v. Smith
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.