Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 P2D 1148 - Murray v. Feight

Murray v. Feight’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Borg-Warner Corp. v. Avco Corp. (1993), Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock (1999)

33 state decisions

1701987199020002010decided

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 East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · Yeomans v. Kentucky · Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc. · Overseas Motors, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. Import Motors Limited, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Overseas Motors, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. Import Motors Limited, Inc., a Michigan Corporation

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

  1. “(1) The plea of collateral estoppel must be asserted against a party or one in privity with a party to the first action; (2) The issue to be precluded from relit-igation by operation of the doctrine must be identical to that decided in the first action; (3) The issue in the first action must have been resolved by a final judgment on the merits.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a fair opportunity procedurally, substantively, and evidentially to contest the issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]f the particular circumstances of the prior adjudication would make it unfair to allow a person who was not a party to the first judgment to invoke ... collateral estoppel then the requirement of mutuality must still be applied.”
    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.