DeGuelle v. Camilli’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.3d 933 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Taylor v. Sturgell · Baker Thomas v. General Motors Corporation · 173 Wis. 2d 681 - Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. Crozier · Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt et al.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Could the party against whom preclusion is sought have obtained review of the judgment as a matter of law; 2) Is the question one of law that involves two distinct claims or intervening contextual shifts in the law; 3) Do significant differences in the quality or extensiveness of proceedings be tween the two courts warrant relitigation of the issue; 4) Have the burdens of persuasion shifted such that the party seeking preclusion had a lower burden of persuasion in the first trial than in the second; and 5) Are matters of public policy and individual circumstances involved that would render the application of collateral es-toppel to be fundamentally unfair, including inadequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action?”
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.