Pirela v. Village of North Aurora’s Empirical Analysis
935 F.2d 909 · 1991
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Garry v. Geils (1996), Woods v. Dunlop Tire Corp. (1992)
28 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Bauer v. Waldschmidt · Estate of Johnson v. Engle
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the bar of res judicata extends not only to questions actually decided, but also to all grounds of recovery and defenses which might have been presented in the prior litigation between the parties.'”
3 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.”
3 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.”
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.