O'Reilly v. Malon’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 820 · 1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Swentek v. Usair, Inc. (1987), John Morrell Company v. Local Union 304a of United Food and Commercial Workers (1990)
12 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division · Gregory v. United States Government
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether a judgment not ‘final’ in the sense of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [the Federal counterpart to Cts. & Jud.Proc. art., § 12-301, requiring a ‘final decision’ for appeal purposes], ought nevertheless be considered ‘final’ in the sense of precluding further litigation of the same issue, turns upon such factors as the nature of the decision (i.e., that it was not avowedly tentative), the adequacy of the hearing, and the opportunity for review. ‘Finality’ in the context here relevant may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.” (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“True, this court lacked appellate jurisdiction, a normally radical defect, but we see no reason not to hold in these very unusual circumstances that the judgment rendered against Mission, as affirmed by this court, was a final adjudication of its claim against Malon and Houss for the limited purpose of collaterally estopping Mission itself. Collateral estoppel turns on whether or not the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“everybody involved in this case went right by that point,”
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.