Lawrence W. Lambert v. David R. Conrad and Martha Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 1183 · 1976
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Dickens v. Puryear (1981), Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n (1993)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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 Bell v. Hood · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · City of Kenosha v. Bruno · Sims v. Gardner
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his same result [may be] reached even though the parties did not actually litigate the issue in the prior action because res judicata applies not only to matters actually litigated but also to matters ... asserted in the earlier proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiff has the burden of either pursuading [sic] the court to designate the dismissal as “without prejudice,” or of appealing. Otherwise a dismissal for failure to state a claim is res judicata "as to the existing claim which it appears plaintiff was attempting to state”.... [I]f plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, and leave is denied with prejudice, the denial is res judicata as to any claim in the proposed amended complaint.... But the bar does not extend beyond the claim or cause of action that was pleaded in the complaint. It does not preclude a new suit on different factual allegations that call into play different legal principles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The present defendants are employees of the Board which was the defendant in the prior action. In Spector v. El Ranco, Inc., 263 F.2d 143 (9th Cir.1959), the Ninth Circuit held that a suit against an employee was barred by a judgment in favor of his employer.... Apparently there was no question that the employee had been acting within the scope of his employment at the time of his actions relating to the accident which occurred. ... We hold that the difference in the identity of the defendants in the present action from those in the prior action is insufficient reason to prevent plaintiff from being bound.”
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.