76 Md. App. 298 - Roebuck v. Steuart’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright (2013), 174 Md. App. 681 - Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc. (2007)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 157 · 28 U.S.C. § 158
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Gregory v. United States · General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki · Sard v. Hardy · Simms v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Maryland law requires the following elements for the application of res judicata: “1) that the parties in the present litigation are the same or in privity with the parties to the earlier dispute; 2) that the claim presented in the current action is identical to the one determined in the prior adjudication; and 3) that there was a final judgment on the merits.” Accordingly, a judgment between the same parties and their privies acts as a final prohibition to any other proceeding upon the same cause of action and is final, “not only as to all matters decided in the original suit, but also as to matters that could have been litigated in the original suit.” Res judicata is applied notwithstanding the type of court which rendered the earlier final judgment, provided that the earlier final judgment was rendered by a court of “competent jurisdiction.” The judgment of a court, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction, that has not been reversed must be accepted as conclusive by all other courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Finally, the rule the majority adopt will force the client to choose whether to postpone suit against his negligent lawyer until he has paid his judgment-creditor in full or to institute a separate suit against his lawyer for each partial payment he makes. How the latter course might be affected by the doctrine of res judicata one can only wonder.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are aware of no provisions in the Rules ... which prohibit the joinder of other claims in other counts. While Rule 2-303(c) and 2-503(a)(l) are not made specifically applicable to third party claims, we are aware of no reason or logic why related claims should not be joined with a third party claim.”
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.