Guinness PLC v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
955 F.2d 875 · 1992
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc. (2004), Varat Enterprises Inc First Union Commercial Corporation v. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough (1996)
19 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Mathews v. Eldridge · Allen v. McCurry
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The effect to be given foreign judgments has ... historically been determined by ... principles of comity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the presentation of a defense; (2) The judgment was obtained by fraud; (3) The cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this State; (4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; (5) The proceedings in the foreign court were contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled out of court; (6) In the case of jurisdiction based on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action; or (7) The foreign court rendering the judgment would not recognize a comparable judgment of this State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““the language of § ll-805(b) of the [UEFJA, allowing the creditor to bring a separate action as an alternative to filing under the Act,] when it is remembered that the Act was designed merely as a facilitating device and was not intended to alter any substantive rights or defenses which would otherwise be available to a judgment creditor or judgment debtor in an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment, supports our conclusion that any defenses ordinarily available to the enforcement of a Maryland judgment, and accordingly a sister state judgment which is entitled to full faith and credit, is also available to the enforcement of a foreign country judgment which is entitled to recognition under the [UFMJRA]....””
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.