James v. Paul’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Levy v. Ohl (2007), Mrozek v. Intra Financial Corp. (2005)
18 federal appellate · 46 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 North Carolina v. Alford · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp. · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 58 Cal. 2d 601 - Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical to the issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Both [the victim] and [the tortfeasor] stood to profit from [the tortfeasor]'s duplicity in admitting intentional wrongdoing in the criminal proceeding while, in effect, denying it in the [personal-injury action]. Applying collateral estoppel in this [garnishment action] serves to prevent the potential of collusive litigation as well as promoting the other policies of finality, consistency and judicial economy....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Missouri permits use of a prior judgment to preclude relitigation of an issue even though the party asserting collateral estoppel was not a party to the prior case”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.