Key v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 1049 · 1980
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America (1988), United States v. Shirley (1989)
38 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 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 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Townsend v. Sain · Montana v. United States · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal.
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the doctrine of res judicata bars litigation in a second lawsuit on the same cause of action `of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were available to the parties [in the first action], regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“painstaking opinion by Judge Waterman— painstaking not only in the careful exploration of every conceivable way to find jurisdiction, but also painstaking in the evident sense of trying to find an escape from a painfully unfortunate result....” Lawrence v. United States, 378 F.2d 452 , 467 (5th Cir.1967). See also the language of the original quip itself:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] court's otherwise valid power to take jurisdiction of an in rem action is qualified by the rule that when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained possession, custody, or control of the disputed res in an in rem action, that possession cannot be disturbed by any other court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cassity
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.