696 F. Supp. 2d 21 - Ficken v. Golden’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
26 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Conley v. Gibson · Allen v. McCurry · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
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.
“the same issue ... being raised [was] ... contested by the parties and submitted for judicial determination in the prior case, the issue [was] ... actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in that prior case[,] [and] ... preclusion ... must not work a basic unfairness to the party bound by the first determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barroca v. Hurwitz“whether a court has `patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension, or where a controlling or significant change in the law or facts [has occurred] since the submission of the issue to the court.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]ssue preclusion prevents the re-litigation of any issue that was raised and decided in a prior action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barroca v. Hurwitz
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.