McLaughlin v. Bradlee’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 1197 · 1986
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 24 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Yamaha Corporation of America v. United States (1992), Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co. (1990)
31 federal appellate · 24 district · 7 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. § 1912 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Collateral estoppel is appropriate where the identical issue was 'actually litigated, that is, contested by the parties and submitted for determination by the court ....'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Is there a substantial overlap between the evidence or argument to be advanced in the second proceeding and that advanced in the first? (2) Does the new evidence or argument involve the application of the same rule of law as that involved in the prior proceeding? (3) Could pretrial preparation or discovery related to the matter presented in the first action reasonably be expected to have embraced the matter sought to be presented in the second? (4) How closely related are the claims involved in the two proceedings?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beaty v. McGraw
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.