Howard v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.2d 178 · 1977
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic (1984), Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corp. (1978)
22 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Smith v. Kirkpatrick · Hysell v. Iowa Public Service Co. · Towle v. Boeing Airplane Co. · May v. Edwards
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Res judicata is ... an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is upon the party asserting it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“On this record, then, we are concerned only with res judicata proper, or claim preclusion, and not with collateral estop-pel, or issue preclusion. Accordingly, under well-established principles, [defendant’s] defense cannot be sustained unless it is concluded that the claim presented to the chancery court and the claim presented here are the same cause of action. ****** None of the cases cited by either of the parties convincingly demonstrates that the Arkansas Supreme Court would resolve the dispute one way or the other, and our independent review of the pertinent Arkansas case law has similarly afforded no sure guidance. The general rule in Arkansas is that in order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply it must appear that the particular matter involved was raised and determined or that it was necessarily within the issue and might have been litigated in the previous action. Although the question is admittedly not free from doubt, we are persuaded, at least on this record, that [plaintiff’s] ... claim was not necessarily within the issue presented in the chancery court action and therefore not barred. ... In the absence of any authority indicating that the Arkansas Supreme Court would extend the res judicata defense to situations such as that presented here, we affirm the conclusion of the district court that this action is not barred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hollowell v. Gravett“The amount of damages entered as the judgment in a non-jury case is within the ambit of the discretionary powers of the District Court, although the standard of review is ultimately that of the 'clearly erroneous' concept of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).”
1 later decision 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.