Terrell v. J’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost (1995), Zevalkink v. Brown (1994)
1 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Ross v. Bernhard · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) where a non-party has succeeded to a party’s interest in property; (2) where a non-party controlled the original suit, and; (3) where a non-party’s interests were represented adequately by a party in the original suit.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`demands the existence of an express or implied legal relationship in which parties to the first suit are accountable to nonparties who file a subsequent suit raising identical issues.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find that the Restatement rule appropriately reflects the principles underlying the federal law of issue preclusion. Although close family relationships will not alone suffice to establish privity between successive parties for purposes of issue or claim preclusion, the relevant considerations differ when, as in this case but unlike in Freeman , the successor plaintiff’s claims are also derivative from the first plaintiff’s claims. In that instance, we will apply the Restatement rule, and permit the twice-sued defendant to raise issue preclusive defenses in the subsequent suit by a spouse raising derivative claims.”
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.