Heathcoat ex rel. Estate of Heathcoat v. Potts’s Empirical Analysis
905 F.2d 367 · 1990
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc. (1992), United States v. Corrado (2000)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8116
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Westfall v. Erwin · Ohse v. Hughes · Lormand v. Aries Marine Corp. · Piambino v. Bailey
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder the 'law of the case' doctrine, the 'findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hile the doctrine encompasses only those issues previously determined, the law is clear that it comprehends things decided by necessary implication as well as those decided explicitly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the “law of the case” doctrine, the “findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal.” Westbrook v. Zant, 743 F.2d 764, 768 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Dorsey v. Continental Casualty Co., 730 F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir.1984)). This judicially created doctrine [ ] serves several important purposes, including (1) insuring that litigation on an issue will come to an end, (2) discouraging “panel shopping” at the circuit court level, and (3) assuring the obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts. Westbrook, 743 F.2d at 768 n. 6; see Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1120 (11th Cir.1985). The doctrine does not extend to every issue that could be ever raised in a given litigation but rather is limited to those issues previously decided; the law is clear, however, that the law of the case doctrine “comprehends things decided by necessary implication as well as those decided explicitly.” Wheeler v. City of Pleasant Grove, 746 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted; quotation omitted).”
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.