Spilman v. Harley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 17 district · 3 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 356 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that the precise issue in the later proceedings have been raised in the prior proceeding, that the issue was actually litigated, and that the determination was necessary to the outcome.”

   53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crawford Corporation and Crofton Corporation v. W. Hamilton Crawford and Lillian W. Crawford · Combs v. Richardson

2. “This case concerns res judicata only, and not the narrower principle of collateral estoppel. Whereas res judicata forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit, [citations omitted] If, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar litigation of those issues in bankruptcy court.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rally Hill Productions, Inc. v. Bursack (In Re Bursack) · United States Life Title Insurance Co. of New York v. Dohm (In Re Dohm)

3. “The Supreme Court in Brown, supra, recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, held that a bankruptcy court was not precluded by res judicata from considering extrinsic evidence on an issue which would have been litigated in the prior state court litigation but was not. In that case, the state suit had been settled by a stipulation but the stipulation did not indicate upon what cause of action the liability was based or whether or not the bankrupt had committed fraud. The court rejected res judica-ta in a dischargeability proceeding. It reasoned that where issues in state court were not identical to those in the bankruptcy proceeding, the parties would have little incentive to litigate them and that an express ruling by state courts on dischargeability questions would undermine the congressional intent to vest jurisdiction within the bankruptcy courts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Acceptance Co. of America v. Bathalter (In re Bathalter) · Arndt v. Hanna (In Re Hanna)