In re Pritchard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The holding is ... an application of more general principles of collateral estoppel wherein a judgment previously rendered bars consideration of questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law which were, or should have been, resolved in the earlier litigation. See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 335-338, 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957); Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89 , 90-91, 74 S.Ct. 414 , 98 L.Ed. 532 (1954); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 , 597-602, 68 S.Ct. 715 , 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948). An estoppel of this sort is invoked for various reasons of judicial and public policy. To prevent repetitious litigation, to avoid inconsistent holdings which lead to further litigation, to give sanctity and finality to a judgment, and to generally insure the orderly and complete resolution of disputes are among the interests involved. See generally 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, §§ 394-95, 401-02.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Clark