green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Compa… ↗
Quoted verbatim 6×
11.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1968 ·
…glidden, whose effective life was short, has proven to be, under sound law, an unsafe guide and a dim beacon
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Solomat Partners, LP
(2×)
the law of the case' does not rigidly bind a court to its former decisions, but is only addressed to its good sense
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Victory Markets, Inc.
(2×)
here litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
f, before a case in a district court has proceeded to final judgment, a decision of the supreme court demonstrates that a ruling on which the judgment would depend was in error, no principles of 'the law of the case' would warrant a failure on our part to correct the ruling
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
(2×)
finality' ... may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Local 1251 International Union of United Automobile Workers v. Robertshaw Controls Co.
(2×)
glidden, whose effective life was short, has proven to be, under sound law, an unsafe guide and a dim beacon
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Local 1251 International Union Of United Automobile, Aircraft And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America Uaw v. Robertshaw Controls Company
(2×)
glidden, whose effective life was short, has proven to be, under sound law, an unsafe guide and a dim beacon
discussed
Cited "see"
Kettenbach v. Demoulas
(2×)
See Krock v. Electric Motor & Repair Co., 339 F.2d 73, 74-75 (1st Cir.) (holding that failure to make full use of discovery does not require a finding of lack of due diligence), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States
(2×)
See Krock, v. Electric Motor & Repair Company, 327 F.2d 213 (1st Cir.) (“Since these were matters that could have been asserted prior to the motion for a new trial, an attempt to claim them in that motion was without effect so far as an appeal was concerned.”), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. United States of America, Stephen Evangelista, Personal Injury Plaintiffs' Steering Committee v. United States of America, the Taubman Company, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See Krock v. Electric Motor & Repair Company, 327 F.2d 213 (1st Cir.) ("Since these were matters that could have been asserted prior to the motion for a new trial, an attempt to claim them in that motion was without effect so far as an appeal was concerned."), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). 35 The time for Plaintiffs to object to the allocation of burden of proof was at or prior to trial, when the judge could have remedied the situation if necessary.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivervale Realty v. Town of Orangetown, NY
(2×)
See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964)). 10 .
examined
Cited "see"
Kelly v. Cataldo
(4×)
See Stearns v. Hertz Corp., 326 F.2d 405, 408 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964) (an appeal is to be determined upon the record below); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn.1988) (an appellate court may only consider matters produced and received as evidence below).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Demetrious Papadakis
(2×)
See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Soper v. Simmons International Ltd.
(2×)
See n. 1 supra. However, the law of the case may be disturbed ”whe[n] there has been subsequent, superseding and contrary legal authority, or where there is a clear conviction of error with respect to the earlier ruling.” Id. at 10-11 (citing Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); O’Hagan v. Soto, 565 F.Supp. 422, 426-27 (S.D.N.Y.1983), rev’d on other grounds, 725 F.2d 878 (2d Cir. 1984); Erie Conduit Corp. v. Metropolitan As phalt Paving, 560 F.Supp. 305, 307-08 (E.D.N.Y.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Koppel v. Wien
(2×)
See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 953 (2d Cir.) (“where litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.”), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeffrey Otherson v. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 956 (2d Cir.) (defended first action with vigor, so preclusion appropriate in second action for much higher stakes), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hansen v. White Farm Equipment Co. (In Re White Farm Equipment Co.)
(2×)
See Wayne Chemical Inc. v. Columbus Agency Service Co., supra, at 325 (citing Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Economou v. Butz
(2×)
See generally Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). . 99 S.Ct. at 2677 . . 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation. Van-S-Aviation Corporation v. Piper Aircraft Corporation
(2×)
Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80 , 89 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962); see Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Sherman v. Jacobson, 247 F.Supp. 261, 268 (S.D.N.Y.1965); accord, Restatement (Second) of Judgments, Tent.Draft No. 1, § 41 (March 28, 1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fabric Garment Co., Inc., Mayflower Manufacturing Corp., Joseph Abrams and Murray Berman
(2×)
See Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 956 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sulik v. Taney County
(2×)
See Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433 , 1441 (8th Cir.1986) (law-of-case doctrine does not apply when prior decision is "clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice"); see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.) (good sense exception to law-of-case doctrine includes "clear conviction of error on a point of law that is certain to recur"), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). 4 Our holding in Sulik I applying a three-year statute of limitations to the claims against the police offic…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ronald C. Sulik v. Taney Cty.
(2×)
See Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433 , 1441 (8th Cir.1986) (law-of-case doctrine does not apply when prior decision is “clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice”); see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952-53 (2d Cir.) (good sense exception to law-of-case doctrine includes “clear conviction of error on a point of law that is certain to recur”), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. Paramount Communications, Inc.
(2×)
Significantly, as the District Court in our case pointed out, the court in Sherman concluded that a judgment may be final as to some matters, even though the litigation continues as to others, and “the decision may have adjudicated liability only, leaving the assessment of damages in abeyance.” Sherman, 247 F.Supp. at 268 ; see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Div., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.1964) (“The mere fact that the damages of the Zdanok plaintiffs have not yet been assessed should not deprive that ruling of any effect as collateral estoppel it would otherwise have.�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vigilant Insurance v. Behrenhausen
(2×)
See also, Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Div., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S.Ct. 87 , 95 L.Ed. 632 (1950); La Rose v. Casey, 570 S.W.2d at 749-50 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.) (stating that “in an appropriate case” a ruling on liability is sufficiently final to have preclusive effect), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 519 F.Supp. 1203 , 1217 & n. 8 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (finding sufficiently final a liability determination affirmed on appeal, despite a remand for damages); cf. Gilldorn Savings Ass’n v. Commerce Savings Ass’n, 804 F.2d 390, 393 (7th Cir.1986) (following the Restatement approach in finding sufficiently final a nonappealable…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Orlando Gonzales Claudio and Isaac Camacho-Negron
(2×)
Compare United States v. Papadakis, 802 F.2d 618 (2d Cir.1986) (law of case applied), and Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964) (same), with United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir.1974) (law of case reconsidered).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anthony Morano v. Dennis Dillon, District Attorney, Nassau County
(2×)
See, e.g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89-90 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 911 , 81 S.Ct. 274 , 5 L.Ed.2d 225 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Cenco Inc. Securities Litigation
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Giidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); M.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Katz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 956 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Abatti
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Calvert Fire Insurance v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co.
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Sherman v. Jacobson, 247 F.Supp. 261, 267-70 (S.D.N.Y.1965); Restatement of Judgments § 41 Comment c (1942).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nora Faye Johnson v. United States
(2×)
See also, Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Bruzewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S.Ct. 87 , 95 L.Ed. 632 (1950).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Winters v. Lavine
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944, 954-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Winters v. Lavine
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944, 954-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ligon v. State of Md.
(2×)
Pat Perusse Realty Co. v. Lingo, 249 Md. 33 , 238 A.2d 100 (1968); Rachal v. Hill, 435 F.2d 59, 61-62 (5th Cir. 1970); see also, Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 954-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wayne Chemical, Inc. v. Columbus Agency Service Corp.
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
(4×)
See, e. g., Nevarov v. Caldwell, 161 Cal.App.2d 762 , 327 P.2d 111 (1958), hearing denied, 327 P.2d 122 (1958); see also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 956 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, Columbia Pictures Corp.
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 2 Cir. 1964, 327 F.2d 944, 954-56 , cert. denied 1964, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 ; Bruszewski v. United States, 3 Cir. 1950, 181 F.2d 419 , cert. denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S.Ct. 87 , 95 L.Ed. 632 ; Bernhard v. Bank of America, etc., 1942, 19 Cal.2d 807, 811-13 , 122 P.2d 892, 894-95 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James S. Gerrard v. William G. Larsen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Jack K. Gibbens, Deceased
(2×)
See, e. g., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955-56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Skrzat v. Ford Motor Co., 389 F.Supp. 753, 757-58 (D.R.I.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Waitkus v. Pomeroy
(2×)
Compare Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 , with Berner v. British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 346 F.2d 532 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 983 , 86 S.Ct. 559 , 15 L.Ed.2d 472 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Beall v. KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 377 U. S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942), and cases cited therein at 892.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Provident Tradesmens Bank And Trust Company v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964), in which Judge Friendly found that the defense in the first suit was diligent and adequate and therefore applied collateral estoppel notwithstanding the absence of mutuality.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Provident Tradesmens Bank v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
(2×)
See also Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964), in which Judge Friendly found that the defense in the first suit was diligent and adequate and therefore applied collateral estoppel notwithstanding the absence of mutuality.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Krock
v.
Electric Motor & Repair Co., Inc.
v.
Electric Motor & Repair Co., Inc.
No. 1013.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 18, 1964.
Edward D. Burns for petitioner., Frank L. Kozol for respondent.
Cited by 274 opinions | Published
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.