Anderson v. Janovich’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2008
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 15 U.S.C. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1511 · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 8 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · United States v. Turkette · Dennis v. Sparks · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ollateral estoppel is without a doubt a civil remedy of historical standing. . . . [T]he abrogation of a traditional remedy such as collateral estoppel requires a clearer expression that mere silence.”
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.