Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 377’s Empirical Analysis
700 F.2d 1067 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Bunnett v. Smallwood (1990), 685 F. Supp. 1410 - United States v. Northernaire Plating Co. (1988)
16 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet · Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Res judicata bars a claim when (1) the same party or parties in privity with them were present in the prior litigation; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a valid, final judgment on the merits; and (3) the present action concerns the same subject matter or cause of action as the prior suit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A fundamental precept of common-law adjudication, embodied in the related doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judi-cata, is that a “right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies_” ■ Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Under collateral estoppel, once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation. Application of both doctrines is central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdictions. To preclude parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate protects their adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a measure of the actual damages which [the defendant] incurred in defending against the lawsuit which [the plaintiff] instituted purportedly in violation of the covenant not to sue”
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.