-
667 F.2d 1162·
4th Cir.·
1982-01-08
·cited 61×
The court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, not on the basis of the employee exclusion, but on the grounds of judicial estoppel due to the plaintiff's contradictory prior assertion of employee status.
-
721 F.2d 1305·
Fed. Cir.·
1983-11-08
·cited 46×
The court held that presidential disapproval of an ITC determination does not terminate the investigation, and a prior district court dismissal with prejudice does not preclude a subsequent § 1337 proceeding if the causes of action are not the same.
-
688 F.2d 166·
3d Cir.·
1982-08-30
·cited 42×
A prior state court adjudication of employment discrimination claims bars a subsequent federal § 1981 action under res judicata, even if the plaintiff did not initiate the state proceedings.
-
610 F.2d 1076·
3d Cir.·
1979-08-10
·cited 32×
The court held that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime even if the principal has been acquitted.
-
646 F.2d 599·
D.C. Cir.·
1980-12-18
·cited 16×
The court held that the prior adjudication in the District of Columbia courts should have issue preclusive effect, preventing relitigation of the District's authority to charge for original alley closings.
-
759 F.2d 1117·
3d Cir.·
1985-04-17
·cited 10×
A guilty plea can have preclusive effect in subsequent civil litigation, estopping a party from contesting facts essential to the offense.
-
667 F.2d 1133·
4th Cir.·
1981-12-30
·cited 10×
A guilty plea does not preclude a subsequent § 1983 claim for an illegal search and seizure if the issue was not actually litigated, as the defendant may lack sufficient incentive to litigate suppression issues in the state criminal proceeding.
-
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.
-
939 F.2d 1249·
5th Cir.·
1991-08-28
·cited 8×
The court held that Hogue's federal age discrimination claim was barred by res judicata due to the prior state court judgment on his wrongful discharge claim, as both arose from the same cause of action.
-
666 F.2d 714·
1st Cir.·
1981-12-14
·cited 6×
The court held that collateral estoppel bars a wife's loss of consortium claim when the underlying personal injury action, which determined the same factual issues, was lost by her husband.
-
695 F.2d 1115·
8th Cir.·
1982-12-22
·cited 4×
The prior Arkansas state court judgment collaterally estops the PCA from relitigating its security interest in the crops, as the issue was actually litigated and decided against PCA, and Arkansas law would likely follow modern trends rejecting strict mutuality of estoppel.
-
981 F.2d 602·
1st Cir.·
1992-12-17
·cited 2×
The court held that collateral estoppel bars the plaintiff's current claims because they rely on relitigating issues already decided against him in prior litigation with the defendant's predecessor.
-
819 F.2d 12·
1st Cir.·
1987-05-29
·cited 2×
A prior state court judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief, which granted sentence credit, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal § 1983 damages action for the same underlying grievance, as the damages claim could have been raised in the state action.
-
Del. Ch.·
2023-05-10
The Delaware Court of Chancery held that a presidential pardon does not render a corporate officer successful on the merits for the purpose of mandatory indemnification under Section 145(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Furthermore, a conviction for wire fraud, which r
-
Del. Ch.·
2017-05-31
The Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's claim for inspection of books and records was barred by issue preclusion based on a prior federal court decision. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie basis for personal jur