Humphreys v. Tann’s Empirical Analysis
487 F.2d 666 · 1973
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc. (1977), In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983 (1987)
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Harris v. United States · Roaden v. Kentucky · Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctrine of res judicata or issue preclusion is founded upon the policy of terminating needless and endless litigation, avoiding inconsistent judicial decisions on the same set of facts and effectively allocating judicial time. These policy considerations are directly and intimately related to an overriding federal interest in the effective administration of justice in the federal court system. Furthermore, the issue of the preclusive effect of a federal district court judgment upon an action filed in another district court directly bears upon the internal relationship between compartments of a single federal judicial system. In order to guarantee the effective functioning of the various federal district courts as components of a unitary system for the administration of justice, the force and effect of a judgment rendered in a federal district court upon an action pending, in other federal district courts should properly be determined under federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Some litigants—those who never appeared in a prior action—may not be collaterally estopped without litigating the issue. They have never had a chance to present their evidence and arguments on the claim. Due process prohibits es-topping them despite one or more existing adjudications of the identical issue which stand squarely against their position.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While the doctrine of collateral estop-pel permits a prior judgment to preclude relitigation of an issue previously determined on its merits, it may be applied in favor of a stranger to the first action, but only against a party to that action.” 487 F.2d at 671 . (Emphasis in original)”
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.