Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 799 F.2d 213 - Ocean Drilling Exploration Company Inc v. Mont Boat Rental Services Inc

Ocean Drilling Exploration Company Inc v. Mont Boat Rental Services Inc’s Empirical Analysis

799 F.2d 213 · 1986

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2012

6 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

1201986199020002010decided

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 Ohio v. Kentucky · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Nilsen v. City of Moss Point · Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Machine, Inc. · Southmark Properties v. Charles House Corp.

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar ..., the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose. (2) What factual grouping constitutes a ‘transaction’, and what groupings consti tute a ‘series’, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As a general principle, then, the plaintiff must assert in his first suit all the legal theories, that he wishes to assert, and his failure to assert them does not deprive the judgment of its effect as res judicata.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Transaction may be single despite different harms, substantive theories, measures or kinds of relief_ That a number of different legal theories casting liability on an actor may apply to a given episode does not create multiple transactions and hence multiple claims. This remains true although the several legal theories depend on different shadings of the facts, or would emphasize different elements of the facts, or would call for different measures of liability or different kinds of relief.”
    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.