Mother's Restaurant Incorporated v. Mama's Pizza Inc’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 1566 · 1983
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Umc Electronics Company v. United States (1987), Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems (2000)
28 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Patterson v. United States · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc.
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issues to be concluded are identical to those involved in the prior action; (2) in that action the issues were raised and “actually litigated”; (3) the determination of those issues in the prior action was necessary and essential to the resulting judgment; and (4) the party precluded ... was fully represented in the prior action.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he requirement that a finding be ‘necessary’ to a judgment does not mean that the finding must be so crucial that, without it, the judgment could not stand. Rather, the purpose of the requirement is to prevent the incidental or collateral determination of a non-essential issue from precluding reconsideration of that issue in later litigation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, traditionally called “collateral estoppel,” issues which are actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction are conclusive in a subsequent suit involving the parties to the prior litigation____ The underlying rationale is that a party who has litigated an issue and lost should be bound by that decision and cannot demand that the issue be decided over again.”
2 later decisions 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.