Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 A2D 610 - Smith v. Jenkins

Smith v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
3
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 13 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1997), Smalls v. United States (2006)

6 federal appellate · 13 district · 28 state decisions

20019891990200020102020decided

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 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““renders conclusive in the same or a subsequent action determination of an issue of fact or law when (1) the issue is actually litigated and (2) determined by a valid, final judgment on the merits;. (3) after a full and fair opportunity for litigation by the parties or them privies; (4) under circumstances where the determination was essential to the judgment, and not merely dictum.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A privy is one so identified in interest with a party to the former litigation that he or she [or it] represents precisely the same legal right in respect to the subject matter of the case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “that the party seeking reversal bears the burden of presenting a record sufficient to show that error occurred, and if the record is insufficient for that purpose, we lack discretion to reverse.”
    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.