Ladner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably State v. Brabson (1998), State v. Aguilar (1997)
2 federal appellate · 30 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 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Illinois v. Vitale · Commissioner v. Engle
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the concept of collateral estoppel has proven to be narrower in scope as might have originally been gleaned from the literal language of Ashe . In particular, the question is not whether there is a possibility that an ultimate fact was determined adverse to the government, but whether after examining the pleadings, evidence, jury charge and other relevant material in the record of the first trial a ‘rational jury’ necessarily grounded its verdict upon an issue which the defendant seeks to foreclose from reliti-gation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brosky v. State · Ex Parte McNeil“First, what facts were necessarily determined in the first law suit? Second, has the government in a subsequent trial tried to relitigate facts necessarily established against it in the first trial?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brabson · Ex Parte Lane“‘Collateral estoppel’ is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Necessary
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.