In the Matter of Gerald J. Ross, Also Known as Jerry Ross, Bankrupt. Gerald J. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Leeb v. Guy (In Re Guy) (1988), Graham
6 district ·
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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Brown III v. Felsen · Heiser v. Woodruff · Segal v. Gordon · Lanza v. Drexel & Co.
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action; (2) that issue must have been actually litigated; (3) it must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the prior judgment.”
47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17 [the predecessor of § 523], then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“concerns res judicata only, and not the narrower principle of collateral estoppel. Whereas res judicata forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit.... [W]e need not and therefore do not decide whether a bankruptcy court adjudicating a § [523] question should give collateral-estoppel effect to a prior state judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kwiat v. Doucette
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.