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.
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)
Under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, the right to review decisions and judgments sustaining special pleas in bar is not limited to cases in which the decisions or judgments are based upon the invalidity or construction of the statutes upon which the indictments are founded.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]
The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.
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.
res judicata may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action Helvering v. Horst: 311 U.S. 112 (1940) refinement of assignment of income doctrine: Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. 312 U.S. 1 (1941) Erie doctrine, applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co ...
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 ]