Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

173 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mortell v. Mortell Co.
  887 F.2d 1322· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Donald's federal claims were barred by claim preclusion from the prior state court judgment, and his ERISA claim was dismissed for failure to follow appellate rules.
• Nichols v. City OF ST. Louis
  837 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior state administrative and judicial decision, which found termination for cause, precluded relitigation of an age discrimination claim under the ADEA due to issue preclusion.
• Samuel C. Balderman, M.D. v. United States Veterans Admin. & Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr.
  870 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 11×
  The government cannot be estopped from enforcing its regulations based on an employee's failure to follow internal agency manual procedures, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. under Tr. No. 33832 v. City OF Chicago & Zoning Bd. of Appeals for the City of Chicago
  826 F.2d 1547· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 11×
  A dismissal for failure to comply with a statutory deadline for seeking judicial review of an administrative decision, even if characterized as jurisdictional, is considered a decision on the merits for preclusion purposes under Illinois law.
• Kirk v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Bremen Cmty. High Sch. Dist.
  811 F.2d 347· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' Title VII action based on res judicata because the prior state court litigation did not involve the same cause of action and was not a judgment on the merits under Illinois law.
• Sidney v. ZAH
  718 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the district court's contempt order and declaratory judgment, holding that the Navajo Tribe has a responsibility to comply with judicial orders effectuating the land partition, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction over individual members. The court also aff
• United States v. Merrill Karlen
  645 F.2d 635· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was properly applied to prevent relitigation of lease interpretation issues decided in an administrative proceeding, and that discovery limitations were appropriate.
• JIM Beam Brands Co. v. Beamish & Crawford Ltd.
  937 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was improperly applied because the issue of likelihood of confusion in a trademark cancellation proceeding differs from that in an infringement action, as the former focuses on abstract marks while the latter requires consideration of marks
• Rockford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co. & Mich. Mut. Ins. Co.
  925 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar an insurer's subsequent suit for coverage against another insurer when the coverage issue could not have been raised in the prior underlying litigation due to public policy.
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  913 F.2d 1064· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte after motions in limine without proper notice and opportunity for the plaintiff to present evidence. It also held that the plaintiff's federal claims were not barred by claim preclusion due to a
• Marilyn Benjamin for the Estate of Marc Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n E. Railroads
  869 F.2d 107· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that collateral estoppel can apply to findings from a statutorily mandated arbitration proceeding, and its application does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
• Wozniak v. Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  845 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Wozniaks' Section 1983 claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, as the issues and claims could have and were litigated in the prior state court mandamus action. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Lary v. Mansour Ansari
  817 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that res judicata barred Lary's claims against Ansari and his corporation, but collateral estoppel did not bar claims against Momeni and his corporation because the prior judgment's resolution of the fraud claim was not a necessary part of the judgment.
• Sanders v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  819 F.2d 1151· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 10×
  WMATA is immune from suit for claims challenging its drug testing policy as a governmental function, and negligent termination claims are barred by the grievance and arbitration process.
• Bottini v. Sadore Mgmt. Corp.
  764 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 10×
  A prior state administrative agency's finding of no probable cause on a Title VII claim does not preclude a federal court trial de novo, as the agency ruling does not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the discrimination claim.
• Gill & Duffus Servs., Inc. v. Islam
  675 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-13 ·cited 10×
  An unsatisfied judgment against one of multiple parties liable for an injury does not bar a subsequent action against other potentially liable parties.
• White v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  636 F. Supp. 2d 1272· M.D. Fla.· 2007-07-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed due to lack of standing, failure to state a claim, or untimeliness, but allowed claims for First Amendment retaliation and defamation to proceed.
• Supporters TO Oppose Pollution, Inc. v. The Heritage Grp.
  973 F.2d 1320· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Supporters to Oppose Pollution (StOP) cannot pursue multiple lawsuits against Heritage Group, an alleged alter ego of Environmental Waste Control (EWC), due to statutory bars, claim preclusion, and bankruptcy stay provisions.
• Shoup v. Bell & Howell Co.
  872 F.2d 1178· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 9×
  A federal court's dismissal of a claim on statute of limitations grounds operates as a judgment on the merits, subject to claim preclusion in a subsequent federal action between the same parties.
• Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction and that the Engle Phase I findings can only have issue preclusive effect, not claim preclusive effect, because they did not establish liability.
• Baker v. J.R. Bennett and Laura Bennett
  633 So. 2d 91· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-03-02 ·cited 8×
  A foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida, even regarding the rendering court's jurisdiction, when that issue was expressly litigated and decided by the rendering court.
• Gash Assocs. v. Vill. OF Rosemont
  995 F.2d 726· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was impermissibly seeking to overturn a state court judgment through a federal collateral attack, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
  966 F.2d 1318· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 8×
• Facchiano v. The United States Dep't OF Labor
  859 F.2d 1163· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court should decide the legal issue of claim preclusion and not require exhaustion of remedies before the DOL.
• Krison v. Nehls
  767 F.2d 344· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal court must give preclusive effect to a prior state court judgment under the Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, if the state proceedings afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, even if the claim involves a federal due
• Dist. Props. Assocs. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  743 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 8×
  The District Court erred in dismissing the landlords' claims based on exclusive jurisdiction and the principle of comity (Younger abstention).
• United States v. C. C. Clark, Inc.
  159 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1947-01-23 ·cited 8×
  A prior judgment for overpaid taxes in a specific year bars subsequent claims for that same year, even if based on different grounds.
• Nottingham P'rs v. Trans-Lux Corp.
  925 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 7×
  A state court-approved settlement, including a release, can bar exclusively federal claims if those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the state law claims, even if the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal claims.
• Barrington v. Fla. Dep't of Health
  112 F. Supp. 2d 1299· M.D. Fla.· 2000-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the issues were fully litigated and decided in prior state administrative and appellate proceedings.
• Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc.
  973 F.2d 474· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the lender liability claims of SCPI, Sanders, and Kreissl due to their privity with the debtor in the prior bankruptcy proceedings. Merigian's securities claims were dismissed for failure to adequately plead control person l
• David Bruce Gilbert, M.D. v. Ben-Asher
  900 F.2d 1407· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior state court adjudications and stipulations.
• City Commc'ns, Inc. v. The City OF Detroit
  888 F.2d 1081· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff corporation maintained standing to appeal despite a temporary dissolution under state law, and affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and First Amendment claims.
• Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. OF Regents
  859 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 6×
  A conspiracy to intimidate witnesses in a federal action does not cause cognizable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) if the federal action is dismissed on purely legal grounds before trial, thus not affecting the claimant's ability to present their case.
• In re EL SAN Juan Hotel Corp.
  841 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Kagan's lawsuit was properly dismissed for lack of standing due to a bankruptcy court stay, and that res judicata barred all but one of his claims against Cuprill.
• Kuba v. Ristow Trucking Co., Inc.
  811 F.2d 1053· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court certified questions to the Indiana Supreme Court regarding the availability and scope of treble damages in wrongful death actions under Indiana law.
• Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., Inc. v. Mont Boat Rental Servs., Inc.
  799 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ODECO's contractual indemnity claim was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same transaction as the previously litigated tort indemnity claim and should have been raised in the prior action. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claim again
• Tito Oliveras and Henry Compta v. Lopo
  800 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal action was not barred by res judicata because the claims and evidence required were different from the prior Puerto Rico action, but remanded for determination of the effect of a Puerto Rico statute on compromise agreements.
• In re Daley v. Daley
  776 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar creditors from raising fraud claims in a bankruptcy dischargeability proceeding, even if those claims were dismissed with prejudice in a prior action.
• Adams v. The Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  678 F.2d 1190· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a consent decree entered in an EEOC action has preclusive effect on non-intervening charging parties, barring their individual suits.
• Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. United Yacht Transp. LLC
  842 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that res judicata did not bar the claims and that UYT's counterclaim for cancellation failed because Dockwise LLC's use of the mark in 2012 established priority rights that transferred to Spliethoff.
• Fla. Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  757 F. Supp. 2d 1260· S.D. Fla.· 2010-11-02 ·cited 5×
  Summary judgment is granted for Florida Transportation on liability for permit denials in 2003-2005, but for the County on other claims, due to statute of limitations and res judicata.
• SEA Quest Int'l, Inc. v. Trident Shipworks, Inc.
  958 So. 2d 1115· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-06-22 ·cited 5×
  Sea Quest International sued Trident Shipworks for breach of a yacht construction contract after Trident filed bankruptcy. The court addressed whether prior bankruptcy and federal court proceedings precluded relitigation of liability and damages in state court, ultimately affirmi
• Koziara v. City of Casselberry
  239 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2002-12-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' federal claims because the issues raised could have been litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Nixon v. United States
  978 F.2d 1269· D.C. Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that former President Nixon had a compensable property interest in his presidential papers, and the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) constituted a per se taking requiring just compensation.
• Mansfield Jones v. Poindexter
  903 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot due to the state court's final judgment, and his claims for damages under federal law failed because the defendant's actions did not constitute state action.
• Levitt v. Univ. OF Tex. AT EL Paso
  847 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 5×
• Thalia Kelly Considine and Charles Ray Considine v. The United States
  645 F.2d 925· Ct. Cl.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 5×
  Collateral estoppel applies to the issue of knowing falsification of tax returns, but not to the intent to evade tax or the specific amount of a charitable deduction. The taxpayers are liable for the fraud penalty based on knowing falsification and intent to evade.
• Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp.
  30 F.4th 1079· 11th Cir.· 2022-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The res judicata effect of a consent judgment is determined by the terms of the settlement agreement, not the original complaint. The CFPB may sue Ocwen for violations occurring during the consent judgment's term if they are not covered by the agreement's servicing-standard, moni
• O'Halloran v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP
  969 So. 2d 1039· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-05-04 ·cited 4×
  A bankruptcy trustee appealed the trial court's dismissal of claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) for professional malpractice and other torts arising from PWC's advisory services to a bankrupt company. The appellate court reversed, holding that the claims were preserved i
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Wilcox
  926 F. Supp. 1091· S.D. Fla.· 1995-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment for the FTC and denying the defendants' motion, finding their direct mail solicitations were deceptive and warranted injunctive relief and consumer redress.