Gahr v. Trammel’s Empirical Analysis
796 F.2d 1063 · 1986
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Bechtold v. City of Rosemount (1997), Balough v. Fairbanks North Star Borough (2000)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Traditionally, res judicata (claim preclusion) precludes the same parties from relitigating the same cause of action whereas collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) precluded the same parties from relitigating issues which had been previously adjudicated. * * * ****** * * * The court in reviewing whether the application of collateral estoppel is appropriate should consider: (1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; and (3) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. * * * Most courts have added a fourth factor * * *: whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the first suit resulted in a judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully contested in good faith; (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action which was litigated or could have been litigated but was not; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies.”
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.