Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Empresa Naviera Santa Sa’s Empirical Analysis
56 F.3d 359 · 1995
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably Roe v. City of Waterbury (2008), Irish Lesbian & Gay Organization v. Giuliani (1998)
28 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Cromwell v. County of Sac
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity for litigation in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issues previously litigated were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ollateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the relitigation of issues actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding, as long as that determination was essential to that judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[collateral estoppel ... “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party ..., whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same.” The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.