green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 16×
27.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · 2 courts ·
…a judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Artra Group, Inc. v. Salomon Bros. Holding Co. (In Re Emerald Acquisition Corp.)
a party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene, he must be joined
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Frederick County Fruit Growers Association, Inc. v. Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
unless duly summoned to appear in a 1271 legal proceeding, a person ... may rest assured that a judgment recovered therein will not affect his legal rights
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jesse Vasquez v. State
criminally negligent homicide may be a lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, which may be a lesser included offense of murder, which may be a lesser included offense of capital murder.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Laura Juarez v. State
it is encumbent that the record contain evidence showing an unawareness of the risk before a charge on criminally negligent homicide is required.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc., Inc. v. Comerica Bank
joinder as a party, rather than knowledge of a lawsuit and an opportunity to intervene, is the method by which potential parties are subjected to the jurisdiction of the court and bound by a judgment or decree.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Edward Crowell v. State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Linn County
party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene; he must be joined.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source
a judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System
a judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Taylor, Brent v. Blakey, Marion
n certain limited circumstances, a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Melvin James Lockett Jr. v. State
we have some difficulty understanding the relevancy of a venireperson's employment as a postman . . . as far as his qualifications for jury service.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Irwin v. Mascott
we have recognized an exception to the general rule when, in certain limited circumstances, a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Irwin v. Mascott
we have recognized an exception to the general rule when, in certain limited circumstances, a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wethington v. Purdue Pharma LP
a judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Leonard Wayne Blount v. State of Texas
we have some difficulty understanding the relevancy of a venireperson's employment as a postman . . . as far as his qualifications for jury service.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. City of New York
a judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Avemco Insurance Company, and Lynn U. Goodfellow v. Cessna Aircraft Company
(2×)
a party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James A. Carson v. The Challenger Corporation and Daniel R. Jones, M.D.
Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 765 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2186 (U.S. Ala. 1989).5 Instead, the Court determined that joinder is required before a party is subjected to a court’s jurisdiction and bound by its decree.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Louisiana Seafood Management v. Foster
In addition, the Supreme Court quoted its opinion in Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S., at 762, n. 2 , 109 S.Ct., at 2184, n. 2 , wherein the Court maintained as follows: We have recognized an exception to the general rule when, in certain limited circumstances, a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steans v. Combined Insurance Co. of America
Id. at 762, 765, 109 S.Ct. at 2184, 2186 . 13 The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Martin v. Wilks is applicable 'to the instant case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steans v. Combined Insurance Co.
Id. at 762, 765, 109 S. Ct. at 2184, 2186 .13 The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Martin v. Wilks is applicable to the instant case.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cleveland County Ass'n v. Cleveland County Board of Commissioners
Id. at 765, 768, 109 S.Ct. at 2186, 2187-88 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maloy v. Stuttgart Memorial Hospital
At 762, fn. 2, 109 S.Ct. at 2184, fn. 2 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patricia M. Krueger, and American States Insurance Company, Intervening v. James S. Cartwright
Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 764 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2186 (1989); Moore v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 901 F.2d 1445, 1447 (7th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wethington v. Wellington Industries, Inc.
The language cited above from Martin was predicated on the existence of “the rights of strangers to ... proceedings.” 490 U.S. at 762 , 109 S.Ct. at 2184 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas J. Donaghy v. City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporation, James Skinner, Chief of Police and P.J. Morgan, Mayor of Omaha
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See Wygant, 476 U.S. at 279-81, 106 S.Ct. at 1849-51 (plurality) (reviewing cases); cf. Croson, 488 U.S. at 507, 109 S.Ct. at 728 (majority) (set-aside plan not narrowly tailored).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brunswick Corp. v. United States
Defendant cited the Supreme Court’s recent reiteration of the principle that “one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.” Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2184 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 reh. denied, 492 U.S. 932 , 110 S.Ct. 11 , 106 L.Ed.2d 626 (1989) (citation omitted). 9 In Martin , the Court stated that a judgment “among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.” 109 S.Ct. a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Integrity Ins. Co.
A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.[2] [(Emphasis supplied) Martin, 109 S.Ct. at 2184 (footnote included in quote) (citations omitted).] In footnote 2, the Court went on to say that: We have recognized an exception to the general rule when, in certain limited circumstances a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party ... [citing Hansberry, 311 U.S. at 41-42 , 61 S.Ct. at 118 .] Additionally, where a speci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merin v. Yegen Holdings Corp.
A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings . 2 [(Emphasis supplied) Martin, 109 S.Ct. at 2184 (footnote included in quote) (citations omitted).] In footnote 2, the Court went on to say that: We have recognized an exception to the general rule when, in certain limited circumstances a person, although not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party ... [citing Hansberry, 311 U.S. at 41-42 , 61 S.Ct. at 118 .] Additionally, where a speci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
RSH Constructors, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
The Court broadly states the rule: [A] party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene; he must be joined____ Join-der as a party, rather than knowledge of a lawsuit and an opportunity to intervene, is the method by which potential parties are subjected to the jurisdiction of the court and bound by a judgment or decree. [Emphasis added.] 109 S.Ct. at 2185, 2186 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Martin v. Wilks , 490 U.S. 755 , 762 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Seneca Resources Corp. v. Township of Highland
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 763-65 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (holding that allowing collateral attacks by nonparties on consent decrees was a "principle” that was “incorporat[ed]" into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), superseded by statute for Title VII purposes as recognized in United States v. City of Detroit, 712 F.3d 925, 933 (6th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. City of New York, 198 F.3d 360, 366 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Those who are not parties to a consent decree are free to challenge the decree and actions taken under it.” (citing Martin, 490 U.S. at 7…
cited
Cited "see"
Elliott v. General Motors LLC
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 , 762 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bogdan Law Firm v. Marsh USA, Inc. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)
See Chubb, 600 F.3d at 154 ("'[W]here a special remedial scheme exists expressly foreclosing successive litigation by nonlitigants, as for example in bankruptcy or probate, legal proceedings may terminate preexisting rights if the scheme is otherwise consistent with due process.’”) (emphasis in the original) (quoting Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 , 762 n.2, 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989)); United States v. Security Indus.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eddy Oliver, Oscarlene Nixon, and Mildred Goodwin v. Orleans Parish School Board
See Richards v. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 517 U.S. 793, 798 , 116 S.Ct. 1761, 1766 , 135 L.Ed.2d 76 (1996) (quoting Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761-762 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2184 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989)) (citing 18 C.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. City of Detroit
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989), superseded by statute (in the civil rights context), Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Brennan
(2×)
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 768 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L.
examined
Cited "see"
Leadon v. State
(3×)
The prosecutor also stated that veniremember 31 originally indicated that she would not consider assessing a life sentence. “[W]hen the State indicates that it challenged a prospective juror based on that person’s type of employment and that the State has had poor success with that type of worker, the reason is a race-neutral explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge.” Moore, 265 S.W.3d at 84 (holding that striking postal worker on basis of occupation was race-neutral); see Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 205 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez v. City of St. Louis
See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 41-43 , 61 S.Ct. 115 , 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940), cited in Martin, 490 U.S. at 762 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2180 , and in Taylor v. Sturgell, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2176 , 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (noting “it is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a *1190 litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.”)- Here, the proper inquiry is whether the Bureau will be subject to inconsistent obligations if the Plaintiffs succeed in obtaining an injunction that prevents the Bureau from performing under an absent party’s water service contract, and that party then …
discussed
Cited "see"
El Naggar Fine Arts Furniture, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co.
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 763, 765 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2185, 2186 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (stating that the “law does not impose upon any person absolutely entitled to a hearing the burden of voluntary intervention in a suit to which he is a stranger,” that “[ujnless duly summoned to appear in a legal proceeding, a person not a privy may rest assured that a judgment recovered therein will not affect his legal rights,” and that “[jjoinder as a party, rather than knowledge of a lawsuit and an opportunity to intervene, is the method by which potential parties are subjected to th…
discussed
Cited "see"
El Naggar Fine Arts Furniture, Inc., and Ahmed El Naggar v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company
See Martin v. Wilks , 490 U.S. 755, 763, 765 , 109 S. Ct. 2180, 2185, 2186 (1989) (stating that the “law does not impose upon any person absolutely entitled to a hearing the burden of voluntary intervention in a suit to which he is a stranger,” that “[u]nless duly summoned to appear in a legal proceeding, a person not a privy may rest assured that a judgment recovered therein will not affect his legal rights,” and that “[j]oinder as a party, rather than knowledge of a lawsuit and an opportunity to intervene, is the method by which potential parties are subjected to the jurisdiction o…
examined
Cited "see"
DENSEY v. State
(6×)
In other words, the defendant must “show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the prosecutor’s strike of [a] juror ... was based on or because of ... discrimination.” Id. at 255 ; accord Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 202 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987), aff'd by an equally divided court, 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sandpiper Village Condominium Ass'n v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at 149 , 108 S.Ct. 1684 ; Drelles, 357 F.3d at 346-47 ; Amwest Mortgage, 925 F.2d at 1165 ; Cratsenberg v. Owners of NW 20 Real Estate (In re Federal Shopping Way, Inc.), 717 F.2d 1264, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1983); Alton Box, 682 F.2d at 1273 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sandpiper Village Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida Corporation and All Others Similarly Situated Craig Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Cheryl Ostergren, Co-Conservator for Keith Ostergren, a Minor, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated Keith Ostergren, a Minor Byron Alton Susan Alton Cpc Ltd., Washington Real Estate Developer v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Lester Building Systems, a Division of Butler Manufacturing Company Lester's of Minnesota, Inc., State of Minnesota, Respondent-Amicus, and Harry A. Merlo, State of Minnesota, Insurance Company of North America Cigna Insurance Company of North America Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company, Agricultural Insurance Company National Union Fire Insurance Company Lexington Insurance Company Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant-Intervenors v. James W. Gilles Dale J. Matherly Douglas Meckling Michael L. Watts, Plaintiff-Intervenors
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at 149 , 108 S.Ct. 1684 ; Drelles, 357 F.3d at 346-47 ; Amwest Mortgage, 925 F.2d at 1165 ; Cratsenberg v. Owners of NW 20 Real Estate (In re Federal Shopping Way, Inc.), 717 F.2d 1264, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1983); Alton Box, 682 F.2d at 1273 . 59 The district court's invocation of the relitigation exception was improper for the additional reason that any potential for relitigation of covered claims was addressed by the trial court's instructions to the jury.
cited
Cited "see"
Headwaters Inc., an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service
See Martin, 490 U.S. at 762-63 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc.
See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761-62 , 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2184 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 327 n. 7, 99 S.Ct. 645 , 649 n. 7, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill.
examined
Cited "see"
Tate v. State
(6×)
See Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 215 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), aff'd 490 U.S. 754 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989); Ex parte Mason, 656 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Gaffney v. State, 812 S.W.2d 439, 440 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1991, pet. ref'd); Nubine v. State, 721 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd); see Cathleen C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez-Guzman v. Commonwealth of PR
Perhaps more important, it overlooks the principle that “[t]he law does not impose upon any person absolutely entitled to a hearing the burden of voluntary intervention in a suit to which he is a stranger.” Chase Nat’l Bank v. Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 441 , 54 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed. 894 (1934); accord Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 763 , 109 S.Ct. 2180 , 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (reaffirming that “a party seeking a judgment binding on another cannot obligate that person to intervene; he must be joined”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TOMPKINS
v.
TEXAS
v.
TEXAS
87-6405.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 11, 1989.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 134 opinions | Published
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
Emmett B. Lewis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert K. Huffman and James B. Altman.
Charles A. Palmer, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jim Mattox, Attorney General, Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General, Lou McCreary, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Michael P. Hodge and Margaret Portman Griffey, Assistant Attorneys General.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Steven R. Shapiro, John A. Powell, Julius LeVonne Chambers, and Charles Stephen Ralston; and for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Robert E. Montgomery, Jr., Conrad K. Harper, Stuart J. Land, Norman Redlich, William L. Robinson, and Judith A. Winston.