Harding v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably McAndrew v. Mularchuk (1962), Sautbine v. Keller (1966)
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 20 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
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · Southern Pac Co v. United States · Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow · Charles E. Harding Co. v. Harding · Pickeral v. Federal Land Bank
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At any rate the true reason for this type of res adjudicata is said to be based not so much upon the existence of mutuality and privity in the strict sense as upon the policy of the law to end litigation in a proper case. Under that view a plaintiff who has sought and obtained in a court of competent jurisdiction a determination of an ultimate and decisive fact on the merits is not permitted to again present such fact for litigation in another action wherein the interest and liability of the parties are so necessarily connected and dependent as to require that they be treated virtually the same as the parties to the former action. In our judgment the justice of that reasoning would support the application of the principle in the circumstances of the instant case even if we were to assume that the actions under consideration are different.” Harding v. Carr, supra, 79 R.I. at 41 , 83 A.2d at 83 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In these cases the defendants were permitted to avail themselves by way of estoppel of judgments to which they were neither parties nor privies. The ground on which this was permitted seems to have been that the defendants, though not parties to the judgments, were so connected in interest or liability with the parties that the judgments when recovered coivld be regarded as virtually recovered for them, for the purposes of estoppel, as well as by and for the parties of record. * * (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sautbine v. Keller“"* * * a qUestion or issue distinctly raised by the pleadings, argued by counsel, and deliberately passed on by the court is treated as res adjudicata in a subsequent action between the parties or their privies even if the cases involve different causes of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Conti
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.