Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 634 F.2d 205 - Gregory v. Mitchell

Gregory v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

634 F.2d 205 · 1981

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2011

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1001981199020002010decided

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 Gregory v. Mitchell · 10 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1386, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,320 Jessie Stevenson, Etc. v. International Paper Company, Mobile, Alabama · Wasoff v. American Automobile Insurance

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

  1. “For a prior judgment to bar a subsequent action, it is firmly established (1) that the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) that there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) that the parties, or those in privity with them, must be identical in both suits; and (4) that the same cause of action must be involved in both suits.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “affirmed the district court’s refusal to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state law claims (claims, inter alia, as asserted in the instant state court suit) and the refusal to allow an amendment of the pleadings for the purpose of asserting a shareholder derivative action (as asserted in the instant state court pleadings). These latter discretionary decisions, as affirmed on appeal, ... were not decisions on the merits.”
    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.