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)
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 district and appellate courts held that Taylor was precluded from litigating the issue because he had been "virtually represented" in the prior case. [3] Because Taylor and Herrick were seeking the same documents and were in fact trying to restore the same airplane, reasoned the lower courts, they were attempting to relitigate the issue.
Pages in category "United States res judicata case law" The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. A.
The shortest period is 11 months, for the constitutional law Fourth Amendment (re: search and seizure) cases Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 decision in July 1981, overruled by the United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 decision in June 1982.
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 ...
Shortly thereafter, "part of his skull by reason of the said battery came out of his head", and the plaintiff brought a subsequent action under mayhem. Though Fetter is also known as an early example of res judicata, it is most significant for expanding the ambit of mayhem to include "loss of the skull".