Welch v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
907 F.2d 714 · 1990
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Retired Chicago Police Association Carepac v. City of Chicago M, Flaherty v. Gas Research Institute (1994)
23 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Martinez v. California · University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Baskett v. United States
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ms. Welch argues that these facts occurred for one reason (a discriminatory motive); the defendants argue that the same facts occurred for a different reason (just cause to dismiss Ms. Welch). The single factual situation out of which both sides arise is DCFS’s conduct toward Ms. Welch that eventually culminated in her discharge. This conduct and the reasons underlying that conduct are relevant as either part of a claim or a defense in both the state and federal claims ... Thus, ... the state circuit court’s judgment affirming the propriety of Ms. Welch’s discharge would bar ... her federal suit....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) identity of parties or their privies in the two suits; (2) identity of causes of action in the prior and current suit; and (3) a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the law of the state in which the prior judgment is rendered would give that judgment preclusive effect against the claims asserted in the federal action; and (2) whether the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity in the state proceedings to litigate the claims (i.e. whether the state proceedings satisfy minimum due process requirements.”
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.