-
706 F.2d 15·
1st Cir.·
1983-04-26
·cited 34×
Res judicata bars the plaintiff's federal court action because the claims arose from the same transaction or series of transactions as the prior state court action.
-
899 F.2d 737·
8th Cir.·
1990-03-30
·cited 30×
Claims against the panel members are barred by res judicata as they arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as a prior suit. Claims against the attorney are dismissed on their merits.
-
785 F.2d 781·
9th Cir.·
1986-03-25
·cited 30×
The court held that res judicata barred claims arising from conduct prior to the state court judgment, but not claims arising from subsequent conduct.
-
763 F.2d 851·
7th Cir.·
1985-06-04
·cited 23×
An action for back pay under Title VII is not barred by res judicata when the plaintiff previously obtained administrative relief affirmed by a state court, if state law did not permit back pay awards at the time of the administrative decision. A motion for attorneys' fees for st
-
773 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1985-09-03
·cited 21×
The court held that the plaintiff's antitrust claim against the bank and Willard was barred by res judicata, and that the Board of Trade was entitled to summary judgment based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
-
835 F.2d 1329·
10th Cir.·
1988-01-06
·cited 20×
The court held that federal law of res judicata applies to diversity actions and that the plaintiff's second lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion because the claims arose from a series of connected transactions that should have been litigated together in the first action.
-
736 F.2d 694·
Fed. Cir.·
1984-06-08
·cited 10×
The court held that the consent judgment did not bar the opposition to the LADY GORDON mark, as it did not constitute a contractual consent to registration and res judicata did not apply because no issues were actually litigated and the claims were not the same.
-
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
-
863 F.2d 403·
5th Cir.·
1989-01-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the second lawsuit seeking underinsured motorist benefits was barred by res judicata because all claims arose from a single transaction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-06-16
The court held that the current action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as a previously filed, related action and the plaintiffs failed to properly withdraw from the prior action.
-
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.
-
953 F.2d 1235·
10th Cir.·
1992-01-15
The court held that the district court erred in denying summary judgment based on res judicata, as the second lawsuit involved the same parties and transaction as the first, even though different legal theories were advanced.
-
837 F.2d 173·
4th Cir.·
1988-01-25
The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants because Snell's claims were barred by res judicata under Maryland law.