Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 958 F.2d 864 - Western Systems, Inc. v. Ulloa

Western Systems, Inc. v. Ulloa’s Empirical Analysis

958 F.2d 864 · 1992

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2003), Latman v. Burdette (2004)

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

530199220002010decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

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

  1. “Whether two events are part of the same transaction or series depends on whether they are related to the same set of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried together.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To read Choo as the other Circuits have ... would in essence be to read res judicata entirely out of section 2283. Any issue which was “actually litigated” by the parties in a prior proceeding will be barred by collateral estoppel (“issue preclusion”), without any need to rely on res judicata (“claim preclusion”).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he question whether the district court had the power to issue the injunction is... reviewed de novo, while its decision to exercise that power is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
    3 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.