Stephens v. Tolbert’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.3d 1173 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Williams v. McNeil (2009), United States v. Franklin (2012)
6 federal appellate · 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 Thomas v. Arn · State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · United States v. Raddatz · Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. · Borden v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether a later position asserted by a party was clearly inconsistent with an earlier position; (2) whether a party succeeded in persuading a court to accept an earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled; and (3) whether the party with an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not es-topped.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Timco filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Arizona district court. However, the court never ruled on the motion to dismiss. Instead, the parties stipulated to a transfer to the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). Neither the stipulation itself nor section 1404(a) makes any reference to lack of personal jurisdiction. Section 1404(a) states: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to prevent a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.”
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.