Mandich v. Watters’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 462 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2019
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · In re Disbarment of Morrison · Gray v. Lacke · Hicks v. Quaker Oats Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue was identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general rule is that, 'if a judgment is appealed, collateral estoppel only works as to those issues specifically passed upon by the appellate court.' " (quoting Hicks v. Quaker Oats Co. , 662 F.2d 1158 , 1168 (5th Cir. 1981) ) ). Consistent with our pragmatic approach to analyzing preclusion, these two "rules,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“precludes a party from relitigating a legal or factual issue that was actually litigated in a prior proceeding and was essential to the judgment rendered.”
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.