Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 N.W.2d 347 - Spiker v. Spiker

Spiker v. Spiker’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Troxel v. Granville · Reno v. Flores · United States v. Swift & Co. · Walker v. City of Birmingham · System Federation No. 91 v. Wright

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

  1. “The general rule of claim preclusion provides a valid and final judgment on a claim precludes a second action on that claim or any part of it. The rule applies not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but also as to any other admissible matter which could have been offered for that purpose. Claim preclusion, as opposed to issue preclusion, may foreclose litigation of matters that have never been litigated. It does not, however, apply unless the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate the claim or issue in the first action. A second claim is likely to be barred by claim preclusion where the “acts complained of, and the recovery demanded are the same or where the same evidence will support both actions.” A plaintiff is not entitled to a second day in court by alleging-a new ground of recovery for the same wrong.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) “the parties in the first and second action were the same”; (2) “the claim in the second suit could have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the prior case”; and (3) “there was a final judgment on the merits in the first action.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Factors to be considered in determining whether to award attorney fees include: 'the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and the relative merits of the appeal.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.