Conte v. L Justice’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably McMahan v. Toto (2001), Rupert v. Krautheimer (In Re Krautheimer) (1997)
2 district · 1 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 Allen v. McCurry · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Ryan v. New York Telephone 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Initially, the court must determine whether the issue sought to be litigated is identical to an issue necessarily decided in the prior action and decisive on the present action. Schwartz v. Public Adm’r of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 71 , 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 960 , 246 N.E.2d 725, 728 (1969). Upon satisfaction of the issue identity requirement, inquiry turns toward whether the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to contest the determination now said to control. Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e indicated that the burden rests on the defendant to show that collateral estoppel should not be applied because he did not have a full and fair opportunity, just as the burden of showing that the issue was identical and necessarily decided rests upon the moving party. This apportionment of the burdens is both fair and necessary. Otherwise much of the value of collateral estoppel will be lost.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(citations omitted). The court further stated that: [flaetors listed by the New York Court of Appeals to assist in this inquiry include the forum for the prior litigation, the competence and experience of counsel, the foreseeability of future litigation, and the context and circumstances surrounding the prior litigation that may have deterred the party from fully litigating the matter.”
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.