Howard G. Dindo v. Harold O. Whitney’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.2d 1 · 1971
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Zimmerman v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rapid City, S.D. (1988), First State Bank of Hudson County v. United States (1979)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Southern Construction Co. v. Pickard · United States of America, Libelant-Appellant v. Eastport Steamship Corporation · Dragor Shipping Corporation, a Corporation, Formerly Ward Industries Corporation v. Union Tank Car Company, a Corporation · Lawhorn v. Atlantic Refining 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The bar arising out of Rule 13(a) has been characterized variously. Some courts have said that a judgment is res judicata of whatever could have been pleaded in a compulsory counterclaim. Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Union Tank Car Co., 9 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 241 ; United States v. Eastport S.S. Corp., 2 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 795 . Other courts have viewed the rule not in terms of res judicata, but as creating an estoppel or waiver. Lawhorn v. Atlantic Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 353 ; Dow Chemical Co. v. Metlon Corp., 4 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 292 . The latter approach seems more appropriate, at least when the case is settled rather than tried. The purposes of the rule are ‘to prevent multiplicity of actions and to achieve resolution in a single lawsuit of all disputes arising out of common matters.’ Southern Constr. Co. v. Pickard, 1962, 371 U.S. 57, 60 , 83 S. Ct 108, 110 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 31 . If a case has been tried, protection both of the court and of the parties dictates that there should be no further directly related litigation. But if the case is settled, normally the court has not been greatly burdened, and the parties can protect themselves by demanding cross-releases. In such circumstances, absent a release, better-tailored justice seems obtainable by applying principles of equitable estoppel. “If, in the case at bar, Dindo, clearly having opportunity to assert it, c/ LaFollette v. Herron, D.C. Tenn., 1962, 211 F. Supp. 919 , knew of the existence of a right to co”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.