Appley v. West’s Empirical Analysis
832 F.2d 1021 · 1987
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 110 Ohio App. 3d 817 - Needham v. the Provident Bank (1996), Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett (1989)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · McCarthy v. United States · Federal Election Commission v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League · 21 Cal. 3d 671 - Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to the earlier proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided on the merits; (3) the resolution of the particular issue was necessary to the result; and (4) the issues are identical.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mere fact that the predicate acts relate to only one overall scheme does not mean that the acts automatically fail to satisfy the pattern requirement,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for the purpose of establishing a fact basis for the plea, the parties agreed at the plea hearing that the minimum amount that Mr. West embezzled from Ms. Appley was $495,000_ We cannot say, after reviewing the transcripts of the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, that the issue of the amount of Ms. Appley’s injury from Mr. West’s acts was actually litigated and decided on the merits and that the amount of the injury was necessary to the guilty plea.... Here, the record shows that, at the sentencing hearing, there was no litigation of the amount of restitution.... It is clear that there was little incentive to litigate the issue aggressively at the sentencing hearing. Because the amount of restitution was not a material fact of the indictment on which the guilty plea was based, because the issue of the amount of Ms. Appley’s injury was not litigated, because Ms. Appley failed in her burden of establishing that the amount of injury was established by the guilty plea, and finally, because, under the facts of this case, the application of preclusion would be unfair, we hold that the district court erred in applying collateral estoppel to grant summary judgment in favor of Ms. App-ley in the amount of $2,871,000. An unresolved issue of material fact remains as to the amount in which Ms. Appley was injured by Mr. West’s acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Appley v. West
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.