Day v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2019
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Satsky v. Paramount Communications, Inc. · Chrysler Corp. v. Todorovich · Distad v. Cubin · Toltec Watershed Improvement District v. Johnston
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The application of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS to an instance such as this resembles judicial es-toppel although the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS does not rely upon that doctrine. When read together, the pertinent provisions of RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS §§ 50 and 51 in this instance provide the amount of damages obtained by the Days in the suit against Pamida, Inc. is the limit on the damages that may be claimed against Davidson, and Davidson is to be credited with that amount as to any judgment entered against him. Since it is apparent that in applying this rule the Days could recover no additional monies from Davidson, we agree with the decision of the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Davidson.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fuentes v. JEDNAT““If two persons have a relationship such that one of them is vicariously responsible for the conduct of the other, and an action is brought by the injured person against one of them, the judgment in the action has the following preclusive effects against the injured person in a subsequent action against the other.... “(2) A judgment in favor of the injured person is conclusive upon him as to the amount of his damages, unless: “(b) Different rules govern the measure of damages in the two actions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'A consent decree [judgment] ... is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.