Dettmann v. Kruckenberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

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

1. “'(1) the issue determined in the prior action is identical to the present issue; (2) the issue was raised and litigated in the prior action; (3) the issue was material and relevant to the disposition in the prior action; and (4) the determination made of the issue in the prior action was necessary and essential to that resulting judgment.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roth v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y · 123 F. Supp. 2d 485 - Lyons Ex Rel. Lyons v. Andersen

2. “First, ... [the father] himself testified in the criminal case and therefore had the opportunity to present any relevant évidence concerning the driver issue. Second, an identity of interests existed between [father and son] at the time of the criminal proceeding. [Mr. Krueken-berg], as [the criminal defendant’s] father and the vehicle owner, had a great personal interest in seeing that all evidence relevant to [the criminal defendant’s] defense was presented in the criminal trial. Additionally, [the father] should have been on notice that he was subject to potential civil liability ... concerning [the son’s] fault in causing the accident.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 F. Supp. 2d 485 - Lyons Ex Rel. Lyons v. Andersen · Modiri v. 1342 Restaurant Group, Inc.

3. “Defendant Hall has invoked defensive use of the doctrine of issue preclusion. Defensive use has been defined to mean that a stranger to the judgment, ordinarily the defendant in the second action, relies upon a former judgment as conclusively establishing in his favor an issue which he must prove as an element of his defense. [Citations omitted.] Here, defendant Hall is not a stranger to the judgment but is the direct beneficiary of the earlier judgment, having been judged innocent of any negligent conduct regarding the accident. Thus, Hall is asserting the shield of issue preclusion not as a stranger but as a party to the first suit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. Small · 123 F. Supp. 2d 485 - Lyons Ex Rel. Lyons v. Andersen