Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

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

• Riley v. Wooten
  999 F.2d 802· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-18
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, as the prior administrative hearing did not address the propriety of the initial business closing or resulting damages.
• United States v. Am. Heart Research Found., Inc.
  996 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-18
  The pre-1986 False Claims Act did not apply to 'reverse false claims' where the government was underpaid, and a prior injunction action does not bar a subsequent claim for unjust enrichment.
• Medvick v. City OF Univ. City
  995 F.2d 857· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that a prior state court judgment on constitutional claims bars a subsequent federal § 1983 action based on the same claims due to res judicata.
• DuFRESNE'S Auto Serv., Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  992 F.2d 920· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-30
  The court held that the dealers' claims under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, as the cause of action accrued when their franchise agreements expired or when Shell assigned them to Panoco, not when Shell later assert
• Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Guilford Transp. Indus., Inc.
  989 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-09
• Wade v. Hopper
  993 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-17
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, properly dismissed the RICO and Bivens claims, and correctly applied res judicata to bar the unreasonable search claim.
• Bd. of Trs. of Trucking Emps. of N. Jersey Welf. Fund v. Centra
  983 F.2d 495· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-29
  The court held that Centra was under common control with Mason-Dixon, making it liable for withdrawal payments, and that MPPAA requires interim payments pending dispute resolution. However, the issue of whether Mason-Dixon breached the settlement agreement, justifying rescission,
• United States v. Lacey
  982 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-14
  The court held that res judicata does not bar the government from proceeding against a surety after obtaining a judgment against the principal, and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e)
• In re Jenson v. Jenson
  980 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-01
  The FDIC's attachment lien was not a voidable preference and was properly allowed as a secured claim because it was perfected more than 90 days before the bankruptcy filing.
• Best v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  953 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-25
  A plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial in federal court for claims under the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination (KAAD) because the action is considered equitable in nature, and damages for pain, suffering, and humiliation are limited by statute.
• Martin v. Garman Constr. Co.
  945 F.2d 1000· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-17
  The National Labor Relations Board's decision that an employer did not commit an unfair labor practice under the NLRA does not preclude a district court from finding the employer liable under ERISA for unpaid contributions based on the same contract.
• O'Leary v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  923 F.2d 1062· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-22
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the issue whether the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision applied, even though there may have been an intervening change in the law, because the current action arose from the same disp
• Hermes Automation Tech., Inc. v. Hyundai Elecs. Indus. Co., Ltd.
  915 F.2d 739· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-24
  The court held that the settlement agreement did not unambiguously release Hyundai Electronics Industries (HEI) from independent claims, and extrinsic evidence should be considered to determine the parties' intent. Derivative claims against HEI for Hyundai Electronics America's (
• North v. Walsh
  881 F.2d 1088· D.C. Cir.· 1989-07-25
  The court held that claim and issue preclusion did not bar North's FOIA action, and that FOIA exemption 7(A) requires a specific showing of interference with enforcement proceedings, not a blanket exemption.
• Oulman v. Rolling Green, Inc.
  851 F.2d 1032· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-27
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the appellants' claims were barred by res judicata and that the second forfeiture notice was effective.
• Texaco Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Medina
  834 F.2d 242· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-04
  The court held that a prior Superior Court judgment barred the appellants' first counterclaim under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by judgment, and that their antitrust counterclaim was conclusory and without merit.
• Solar v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  600 F. Supp. 535· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's case was barred by collateral estoppel due to a prior ruling on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Huie v. The Phoenix Ins. Co.
  413 F.2d 613· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-24
  The court held that injuries resulting from an assault and battery committed by the insured are excluded from coverage under the policy, and res judicata bars relitigating the basis of liability.