Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 884 P2D 695 - Michaelson v. Michaelson

Michaelson v. Michaelson’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 8 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Lance v. Dennis (2006), Bebo Construction Co. v. Mattox & O'Brien, P.C. (1999)

3 federal appellate · 8 district · 26 state decisions

230199420002010decided

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 Brown III v. Felsen · Pomeroy v. Waitkus · City of Westminster v. Church · Mesa Sand & Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc. · In Re Questions Submitted by United States Dist. Ct.

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

  1. “(1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) The party against whom estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) There was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; (4) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The issue precluded is identical to an issue actually litigated and necessarily adjudicated in the prior proceeding; (2) The party against whom estoppel was sought was a party to or was in privity with a party to the prior proceeding; (3) There was a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; [and](4) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “An issue is necessarily adjudicated when the determination of an issue was necessary to a judgment.”
    2 later decisions 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.