9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 69 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber Anchor | green | “(1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.” | 24 |
| 2 | DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber | green | “issue preclusion applies (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.” | 17 |
| 3 | DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber | green | “issue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.” | 9 |
| 4 | Murphy v. Murphy | green | “(1) to promote judicial economy by minimizing repetitive litigation; (2) to prevent inconsistent judgments which undermine the integrity of the judicial system; and (3) to provide repose by preventing a person from being harassed by vexatious litigation.” | 4 |
| 5 | Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. | green | “refers to 'the obligation resting on one party to make good a loss or damage another party has incurred.” | 4 |
| 6 | Schafer v. City of Los Angeles CA2/3 | green | “in reviewing the agency's decision, the trial court examines the whole record and considers all relevant evidence . . . .' substantial evidence means evidence '"'"of ponderable legal significance.” | 3 |
| 7 | Ross v. California Coastal Commission | green | “a reasonable person could not have reached the conclusion reached by” | 3 |
| 8 | Ross v. California Coastal Commission | green | “may reverse the commission's decision only if, based on the evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached the conclusion reached by it” | 3 |
| 9 | Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. | green | “although traditional equitable indemnity once operated to shift the entire loss upon the one bound to indemnify, the doctrine is now subject to allocation of fault principles and comparative equitable apportionment of loss.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.