Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 20 Neb. L. Rev. 251 (1941). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Supreme Court Decisions on Federal Criminal Procedure, 14 Rocky Mntn. L. Rev. 105 (1941).
Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident (though res judicata operates within the civil court system). For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal prosecution, but lost a civil wrongful death claim brought over ...
Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence except when the defendant is a servicemember as the courts have ruled that the military courts are a separate sovereign ...
the involuntary statement of a criminal suspect uttered during a schizophrenic episode but not coerced by the Government is not precluded from admission in court by the due process clause Griffith v. Kentucky: 479 U.S. 314 (1987) criminal defendants receive the benefit of new constitutional rules announced before their cases are final on direct ...
case brought against Coca-Cola under the Pure Food and Drug Act: United States v. Oppenheimer: 242 U.S. 85 (1916) doctrine of res judicata applies to criminal cases American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. 241 U.S. 257 (1916) scope of federal question jurisdiction in patent law case Caminetti v. United States: 242 U.S. 470 (1917)
Semtek v. Lockheed Martin, 531 U.S. 497 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the claim preclusive effect of a federal judgment on a claim over which subject matter jurisdiction is based solely on diversity is determined by the common law of the state in which the federal district court rendering the decision is located.
The importance of finality is the source of the concept of res judicata: the decisions of one court are settled law and may not be retried in another case brought in a different court. References [ edit ]