State v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 18 district · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 179 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Ingenito (1981), Culver v. Insurance Co. of North America (1989)
13 federal appellate · 18 district · 139 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Ashe v. Swenson · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Yates v. United States · 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association
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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the identical issue was decided in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the bar is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question [in the prior matter].”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ollateral estoppel is that branch of the broader law of res judicata which bars relitigation of any issue which was actually determined in a prior action, generally between the same parties, involving a different claim or cause of action.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ollateral estoppel has been used in criminal prosecutions to complement the constitutional protection against double jeopardy by protecting defendants against multiple prosecutions for different "offenses" based on the same set of facts. See, e.g., Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , 77 S.Ct. 1064 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 1356 (1957); Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575 , 68 S.Ct. 237 , 92 L.Ed. 180 (1948); United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 , 37 S.Ct. 68 , 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916); State v. Bell, 55 N.J. 239 , 260 A. 2d 849 (1970); State v. Cormier, 46 N.J. 494 , 218 A. 2d 138 (1966). Thus the hallmark of this doctrine has been the identity of parties. The leading United States Supreme Court case, Ashe v. Swenson, supra, defined collateral estoppel to be "the principle that bars relitigation between the same parties of issues actually determined at a previous trial." 397 U.S. at 442 , 90 S.Ct. at 1193 , 25 L.Ed. 2d at 474 . [ Gonzalez, supra, 75 N.J. at 192 , 380 A. 2d 1128 .]”
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.