La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C.V.’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 900 · 1990
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc. (1990), Karazanos v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. (1991)
87 federal appellate · 3 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Montana v. United States · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation, (2) the issue must have been actually litigated, (3) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment, and (4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked must be fully represented in the prior action.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lohorn v. Michal, 913 F.2d 327 , 331 (7th Cir.1990). We must be satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Schroud, 916 F.2d 394 , 398 (7th Cir.1990). 21 We must first determine whether Schiefelbein violated the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under collateral estoppel, once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation.”
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.