Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 617 F.2d 435 - Boone v. Kurtz

Boone v. Kurtz’s Empirical Analysis

617 F.2d 435 · 1980

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
3
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Gaf Corporation v. United States Keene Corporation (1987), Bunker Ramo Corporation v. United Business Forms Inc M H (1983)

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

31019801990200020102020decided

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 Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Durfee v. Duke · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Jones · Mervin v. Federal Trade Commission

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

  1. “Although the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction does not adjudicate the merit so as to make the case res judicata on the substance of the asserted claim, it does adjudicate the court’s jurisdiction, and a second complaint cannot command a second consideration of the same jurisdictional claims.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[d]ismissal by the court sua sponte on res judicata grounds . . . in the interest of judicial economy where both actions were brought before the same court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(E)ven though Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c) denominates res judicata as an affirmative defense(,) (d)ismissal by the court sua sponte on res judicata grounds ... is permissible in the interest of judicial economy where both actions were brought before the same court”
    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.