Gallagher v. Frye’s Empirical Analysis
631 F.2d 127 · 1980
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents (1981), Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Federal Power Commission · Martin Theatres of Texas, Inc. v. Bullock · Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“from the same defendant, for the same wrong, in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Circuits are split in applying the res judicata doctrine to § 1983 federal court actions where constitutional claims could have been but were not raised in an earlier state court proceeding. The Second and Third Circuits have held that a state court litigant is not precluded from later asserting his § 1983 constitutional claims in federal court. New Jersey Ed. Ass'n v. Burke, 579 F.2d 764 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 894 , 99 S.Ct. 252 , 58 L.Ed.2d 239 (1978); Lombard v. Board of Education, 502 F.2d 631 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 976 , 95 S.Ct. 1400 , 43 L.Ed.2d 656 (1975) (criticized in Note, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 453 (1974)). See also Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist., 557 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1977). Other circuits, in accord with this circuit, apply the res judicata doctrine. See, e. g., Spence v. Latting, 512 F.2d 93 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 896 , 96 S.Ct. 198 , 46 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975); Lovely v. Laliberte, 498 F.2d 1261 (1st Cir. 1974). The issue has sparked a number of articles on the effect state court judgments should have on federal claims. See, e.g., Theis, Res Judicata in Civil Rights Act Cases: An Introduction to the Problem, 70 Nw.U.L.Rev. 859 (1976); Comment, Res Judicata and Section 1983: The Effect of State Court Judgments on Federal Civil Rights Actions, 27 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 177 (1979). See also Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4253 at 568-69 (1978). Scoggin v. Schrunk remains the law of this Circuit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boucher v. Dramstad““. . .the general Restatement principles prohibiting the splitting of causes of action and barring subsequent suits based on the same transaction or series of transactions previously litigated. Restatement of Judgments § § 61-62 (1942); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § § 61-61.1 (Tent. Draft No. 5, 1978).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hughes v. Salo
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.