552 F. Supp. 2d 980 - Rutherford v. Rutherford’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank · Costner v. URS Consultants, Inc. · United States v. Gurley · Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based on proper jurisdiction; (3) both suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with them); and (4) both suits are based upon the same claims or causes of action. Furthermore, the party against whom res judicata is asserted must [ (5) ] have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter in the proceeding that is to be given preclusive effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rutherford v. Kessel
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.