Corey Ryan v. Hk Loui’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 829 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine (2001), Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc. (2004)
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 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 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Katchen v. Landy · Bowsher v. Merck & Co.
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the majority view, judicial estoppel does not apply unless the assertion inconsistent with the claim made in the subsequent litigation "was adopted in some manner by the court in the prior litigation.” Under the minority view, judicial estoppel can apply even when a party was unsuccessful in asserting its position in the prior judicial proceeding, “if the court determines that the alleged offending party engaged in 'fast and loose’ behavior which undermined the integrity of the court.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We also reject appellants’ attempts to challenge the Louis’s claims against the Corey estate. The Louis’s claims arise from the Hawaii court’s decision_ Appellants raise a number of objections to the state court’s decision based on the Constitution and state and federal law. Appellants’ claims thus represent a collateral attack upon the judgment of a state court. This attack is beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts to consider, even though it purports to raise constitutional issues. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 [ 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1311-12 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 ] ...; Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir.1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Audre, Inc.“It does not make sense to have appeals from a decision of an Article III judge heard by a panel of Article I judges, or by another judge of that judge's district court. We accordingly hold that we will treat an appeal from the decision of a district court judge sitting as a bankruptcy court as an appeal from a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.”
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.