Ritchie v. Landau’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 151 · 1973
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew (1975), Anaconda-Ericsson Inc. v. Hessen (1985)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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 Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese · Schwartz v. Public Administrator · Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. · Flick-Reedy Corp. v. Hydro-Line Manufacturing 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e have held that one not a named party to an arbitration proceeding can successfully rely in defense of a court action upon the collateral estoppel doctrine when the party suing him had been given a full opportunity to litigate the issue in a prior arbitration proceeding. Goldstein v. Doft, 236 F.Supp. 730 (SDNY 1964), aff’d 353 F.2d 484 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 960 , 86 S.Ct. 1226 , 16 L.Ed.2d 302 (1966); see Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116 , 151 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish Goldstein v. Doft, supra, on the ground that plaintiff Gold-stein ‘lost’ in the arbitration proceedings, while plaintiff Ritchie ‘won,’ this attempted distinction is clearly without merit. The critical fact in both cases is that the plaintiffs were given one opportunity to litigate their claims for compensation before the arbitrators; and one opportunity is all they are entitled to have.” 475 F.2d at 155-56 (footnote and citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It can be strongly argued that plaintiff had an obligation to consolidate into a single proceeding all of his causes of action and to raise in one complaint all the claims which he could reasonably foresee could arise out of the same transaction. Armstrong v. White Plains Council of Girl Scouts, [ 30 A.D.2d 818 ,] 292 N.Y.S.2d 813 , aff’d, 24 N.Y.2d 748 , 299 N.Y.S.2d 846 , [ 247 N.E.2d 662 ] (1968). Courts should not permit the splitting of causes of action when the result of doing so could result in vexatious litigation for the defendant and an undue clogging of the dockets of the court. Plaintiff’s excuse here that he could not have raised the late-pleaded fraud claim earlier is not persuasive. Ritchie v. Landau, Docket No. 72-1672, 475 F.2d 151, at 156, n. 5 (2d Cir. 1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder New York law [the defendant’s] defense of collateral estoppel can prevail despite the fact that [he] was not a party to the [prior] arbitration[.]”). 8 . Norris and his wife base their claim for future payments on paragraph 4(a) of the 1969 Agreement which provided that Norris was entitled to”
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.