Sartin v. Macik’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.3d 284 · 2008
Citation profile
3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Mullins v. State (2009), Voss v. Pujdak (In Re Pujdak) (2011)
3 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Lehman Brothers v. Schein · Clay v. Sun Ins. Office 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars re-litigation of any claims that were or could have been raised in a prior proceeding between the same parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) the issue previously decided is identical to the one presented in the action in ■question; 2) there is a final adjudication on the merits of the prior action; 3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party or in privity with a party to a prior action; and 4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the issues must be the same as those involved in the prior action, (2) the issues must have been raised and actually litigated in the prior action, (3) the issues must have been material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action, and (4) the determination of the issues in the prior action must have been necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.”
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.