Robbins v. Chicago City’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate · 30 district · 143 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 302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Conclusivo effect of judgments respecting the same cause of action and between the same parties rests upon the just and expedient axiom that it is for the interest of. the community that a limit should be opposed to the continuance of litigation, and that the same cause of action should not be brought twice to a final determination. Parties in that connection include all who are directly interested in ihe subject-matter, and who had a right to make defense, control the proceedings, examino and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment. Persons not having those rights substantially arc regarded as strangers to the cause, but all who are directly interested in the suit and have knowledge of its pendency, and who refuse or neglect 1o appear and avail themselves of those rights, are equally concluded by the proceedings.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eagle Manuf'g Co. v. David Bradley Manuf'g Co. · Frank v. Wedderin

2. ““Under the term ‘parties,’ in this connection, the law includes all who are directly interested in the subject-matter and had a right to make defense or to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment. This right involves, also, the right to adduce testimony and to cross-examine the witnesses adduced on the other side. Persons not having these rights are regarded as strangers to the cause. But, to give full effect to the principle by which parties are held hound by a judgment, all persons Who are represented by the parties and claim under them, or in privity with them, are equally concluded by the same proceedings. We have already seen that the term ‘privity’ denotes mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property. The ground, therefore, upon which persons standing in this relation to the litigating party are bound by the proceedings to which he was a party is that they are identified with him in interest; and whenever this identity is found to exist all are alike concluded. Hence all privies, whether in estate, in blood, or in law, are estopped from litigating that which Is conclusive on him with whom they arc in privity.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hauke v. Cooper · Australian Knitting Co. v. Gormly

3. ““The party contracting for the work is liable. * * * Where the work to be done necessarily constituted an obstruction or defect in the street or highway, which rendered it dangerous as a way for travel and transportation, unless properly guarded, or shut out from public use; that in such eases the principal for whom the work was done could not defeat the just claim * * * of the injured party, by proving that the1 work which constituted the obstruction or defect was done by an independent contractor. * * * Where the obstruction or defect which occasioned the injury results directly from the acts which the contractor agrees and is authorized to do, the person who employs the contractor and authorizes him to do those acts is equally liable to the injured party.” (Several cases are cited, which we omit.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Randle v. Naugle · Rinker v. Galveston-Houston Electric Ry. Co.