Davis v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 18 district · 58 state decisions

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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ When a judgment is offered in evidence in a subsequent action between the same parties upon a different demand, it operates as an estoppel only upon the matter actually at issue and determined in the original action ; and such matter, when not disclosed by the pleadings, must be shown by extrinsic evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. David Bradley Manuf'g Co. v. Eagle Manuf'g Co. · Stroup v. Pepper

2. ““ There is a difference between the effect of a judgment as a bar or estoppel against the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim or demand, and its effect as an estoppel in another action between the same parties upon a different 'cause of action. * * * The language, therefore, which is so often used, that a judgment estops, not only as to every ground of recovery or defence actually presented in the action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented, is strictly accurate, when applied to the demand or claim in controversy. Such demand or claim, having passed Into judgment, cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties, in proceedings at law, upon any ground whatever. But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. In all these cases, therefore, where it is sought to apply the estoppel of a judgment, rendered upon one cause of action, to matters arising in a suit upon a different cause of action, the injury must always be as to the point or question actually litigated and determined in the original action, not what migiit have been thus litigated and determined. Only upon such matters is the judgment conclusive in another action. The difference in the operation óf a judgment in the two classes of cases mentioned”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flanagin v. Thompson

3. ““The general tendency of decisions here Is to disregard all objections to. the competency of witnesses, and to allow their position and character to affect only tlieir credibility. * * * The holders of commercial paper who «ínter into agreements or transactions with the makers or indorsers affecting its validity or negotiability cannot invoke protection against the infirmity which they have aided to create. There are no considerations of commercial policy which can exclude the parties in suc-li cases from testifying to the facts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Jansen