Suchta v. Robinett’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Landers v. Smith · 233 Cal. App. 2d 616 - Rothtrock v. Ohio Farmers Insurance · Long v. Union Indemnity Co. · Howard G. Dindo v. Harold O. Whitney · 18 N.J. Super. 95 - Isaacson v. Boswell
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purposes of the rule are “to prevent multiplicity of actions and to achieve resolution in a single lawsuit of all disputes arising out of common matters.” Southern Constr. Co. v. Pickard, 1962, 371 U.S. 57, 60 , 83 S.Ct. 108, 110 , 9 L.Ed.2d 31 . If a case has been tried, protection both of the court and of the parties dictates that there should be no further directly related litigation. But if the case is settled, normally the court has not been greatly burdened, and the parties can protect themselves by demanding cross-releases. In such circumstances, absent a release, better-tailored justice seems obtainable by applying principles of equitable estoppel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Frett
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.