Dodrill v. Ludt’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.2d 442 · 1985
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 121 Wash. 2d 552 - Hanson v. City of Snohomish (1993), 741 F. Supp. 1472 - Mason v. Texaco, Inc. (1990)
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour · Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co. · Teresa Simpson, Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond K. Simpson, Deceased v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any other rule would needlessly and astronomically proliferate the number of issues raised on appeal. If a judgment could be entirely vacated yet preclusive effect still given to issues determined at trial but not specifically appealed, appellants generally would feel compelled to appeal every contrary factual determination. Such inefficiency neither lawyers nor judges ought to court. Litigants ought to be encouraged to expend their energies on their most compelling issues and arguments, without paranoia about the preclusive effect of other issues or determinations.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'general rule [ ] that a judgment which is vacated, for whatever reason, is deprived of its conclusive effect as collateral estoppel'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“reversal ... vacate[d] the judgment entirely, technically leaving nothing to which we may accord preclusive effect.”
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.