Sullivan v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 1368 · 1987
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. (1989), Ethridge V. Harbor House Restaurant (1988)
47 federal appellate · 16 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 77R (§ 18 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of state claims precluded by the res judicata effect of a federal judgment”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'only in exceptional circumstances as it raises difficult issues of state and federal relationships and often yields unsatisfactory results.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“can recharacterize a state claim barred by the res judicata effect of a federal judgment as an artfully pleaded federal claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. People of the State of California City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California, and the State of California as Beneficiary v. Chevron Corporation Unocal Corporation Mobil Oil Corporation Shell Oil Company Shell California Production, Inc. Exxon Corporation Exxon Company, USA Texaco, Inc., in Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in the Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation. City of Long Beach, as Trustee for the State of California, and the State of California as Beneficiary v. Standard Oil Company of California · Ethridge V. Harbor House Restaurant
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.