Segal v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.2d 842 · 1979
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Haring v. Prosise (1983), Robi v. Five Platters, Inc. (1988)
59 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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 Commissioner v. Sunnen · Cromwell v. County of Sac · England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Costello v. United States
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“issues of fact or law that were actually litigated and necessarily decided”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. John M. Ross David L. Ramsay Willa D. Ramsay Anthony Terrizzi Patricia Terrizzi Warson W. Lunt Roy Hastings Edna Hastings Dennis Jaeger Sonja Echt v. Thomas D. Elliott Joel C. Estes E. Myles Harvey William Davis Herbert Katz James W. Meyers William B. Enright Gordon Thompson, Jr., Hon. Earl B. Gilliam Peter K. Nunez John K. Swan Luce, Forward & Hamilton, an Association of Unknown Character, John M. Ross David L. Ramsay Willa D. Ramsay Anthony Terrizzi Patricia Terrizzi Watson W. Lunt Roy Hastings Dennis Jaeger Sonja Echt v. Thomas D. Elliott Joel C. Estes E. Myles Harvey Howard B. Frank William Davis Herbert Katz James W. Meyers William B. Enright Gordon Thompson, Jr., Hon. Earl B. Gilliam Peter K. Nunez John K. Swan · Ghalehtak v. Fay Servicing, LLC“ '[i]ssue preclusion has never been applied to issues of law with the same rigor as to issues of fact[.]' ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 1964 judgment prevented relitigation of the subject matter jurisdiction issue in a subsequent suit so long as the precondition to federal court jurisdiction remained satisfied. . . . . . Dismissing rather than staying an action within the primary jurisdiction of an administrative agency was not intended to end litigation between the parties; rather, the intent was to permit the litigation to continue in another forum withholding federal jurisdiction to clean up the left-overs, if any.”
2 later decisions 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.