Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 476 F.3d 585 - Robinette

Robinette’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Pearson v. Callahan (2009), Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard Scott Rhinehart (2013)

1 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

200200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · City of Canton v. Harris · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.

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

  1. “(1) the party sought to be precluded in the second suit must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the prior action; (3) the issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (4) the issue sought to be precluded must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (5) the determination in the prior action must have been essential to the prior judgment.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'[F]inality' in the context of issue preclusion may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.”
    2 later decisions 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.