green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.9 score
“finality for the purposes of res judicata is not as strict as the requirements of finality for the purposes of bringing an appeal.”
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
MTS, Inc. v. 200 East 87th Street Associates
But see Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas, 742 F.Supp. 741, 754 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (exceptions to finality requirement exist “where a ruling is rendered ‘practically’ final owing to factors demonstrating ‘that it was not avowedly tentative’ ”) (quoting Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962)).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Scheiner v. Wallace
But see Don King Productions, Inc. v. Douglas, 742 F.Supp. 741, 754 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (exceptions to finality requirement exist “where a ruling is rendered ‘practically’ final owing to factors demonstrating ‘that it was not avowedly tentative’”) (quoting Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962)).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hennessy v. Cement & Concrete Worker's Union Local 18A, of the Laborer's International Union
finality for the purposes of res judicata is not as strict as the requirements of finality for the purposes of bringing an appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grimmett v. S & W Auto Sales Co.
See Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, 297 F.2d 80 , 89 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 986 (1962) (quoting Comm’rs of Wilson Co. v. McIntosh, 30 Kan. 234, 238 , 1 Pac. 572 [1883]). “[A] question once clearly and fully decided with right of special and separate review may be res adjudicata, even though such decision was only an order upon a motion.” 30 Kan. at 240 .
cited
Cited "see"
In Re the Julien Company, Debtor. Oakland Gin Company, Inc. v. Jack Marlow, Trustee for the Julien Company
See Greater Baton Rouge Port Comm’n v. United States, 287 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 985 , 82 S.Ct. 600 , 7 L.Ed.2d 523 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Esther Perera v. Siegel Trading Company, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation, Frank Mazza and Howard Siegel
See id. (citing Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 86 (2nd Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 ; Farr & Co. v. Cia.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Judge Dorsey’s ruling was “an adequate and firm determination of one issue in a given action [and Harris Trust] need not await the resolution of the remaining issues before obtaining preclusive effect in a subsequent action.” Morano v. Dillon, 746 F.2d 942 , 945 n. 4 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam) (citing Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 955 (2d Cir.) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964)); see Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961) (Friendly, J.) (“ ‘Finality’ in the context here relevant may mean lit…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Pettaway
(2×)
Schlitz Brewing Co. (7th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 990, 996 , cert. den., 444 U.S. 1102 [ 62 L.Ed.2d 787 , 100 S.Ct. 1067 ]; see Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company (2d Cir.1961) 297 F.2d 80, 89 , cert. den., 368 U.S. 986 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 524 , 82 S.Ct. 601 ].) [2] The White opinion includes the following quote from United States v. Mespoulede (2d Cir.1979) 597 F.2d 329 , 336-337: "`We tolerate inconsistencies in unified jury verdicts in criminal cases, not because of any singular virtue we attribute to inconsistency, but rather out of deference to the nature of the jury and the role it pl…
discussed
Cited "see"
Filiberto Ojeda Rios v. George Wigen, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center
See Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962) (issuing mandamus to district judge within Second Circuit to prevent retrial of issue adjudicated between the parties by the First Circuit).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Peter M. Roberts
(2×)
See Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 87 (2d Cir.1961) ("The right not to have to relitigate an issue [needlessly] is as much entitled to extraordinary protection [by writ of mandamus] as the right to jury trial"), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Briggs v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles
DiGiangiemo v. Regan, 528 F.2d 1262, 1265 (2d Cir.1975) (quoting Restatement), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 950 , 96 S.Ct. 3172 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1187 (1976); see generally Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 87-90 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Quarles v. State
See Quarles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 395 , cert. den. 82 S.Ct. 601 , 368 U.S. 986 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Macri
See People v. Jackson, 22 Ill. 2d 382 , 176 N. E. 2d 803, 805 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 985 , 82 S. Ct. 600 , 7 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. MacRi
See People v. Jackson, 22 Ill. 2 d 382, 176 N.E. 2 d 803, 805 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 985 , 82 S.Ct. 600 , 7 L.Ed. 2 d 523 (1962); Commonwealth v. Spofford, 343 Mass. 703 , 180 N.E. 2 d 673, 676 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Penate v. Kaczmarek
The determination of “finality” depends upon a consideration of whether “the parties were fully heard, the judge’s decision is supported by a reasoned opinion, and the earlier opinion was subject to review or was in fact reviewed.” Tausevich, 521 N.E.2d at 387 (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 cmt. g 1982); see also Mullins, 172 N.E.3d at 768 (quoting Jarosz, 766 N.E.2d at 489 ). “‘“Finality” in the context here relevant may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason for permit…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
AVX Corporation v. Cabot Corporation
See, e.g., Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yaba v. Roosevelt
Miller and Edward Cooper, 18 Federal Practice and Procedure § 4432; see also Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.
Compare Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265, 1272 (5th Cir.1986) (partial summary judgment ruling given no preclusive effect), with Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80 , 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962) (order staying arbitration given preclusive effect even though not a final order); Miller Brewing Co. v. Jos.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, GmbH
Hence making or refusing to make such an order is not appealable under section 1292(a)(1).” Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d 866, 870 (7th Cir.1985); see, e.g., Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 84-85 (2d Cir.1961) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hops Antitrust Litigation (Four Cases). Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, Gmbh Joh. Barth & Sohn Horst Co. Sebastian Klotz Fromm, Mayer-Bass, Gmbh, L. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, Gmbh Joh. Barth & Sohn Horst Co. Sebastian Klotz Fromm, Mayer-Bass, Gmbh L. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, Gmbh Joh. Barth & Sohn Horst Co. Sebastian Klotz Fromm, Mayer-Bass, Gmbh L. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John I. Haas, Gmbh Joh. Barth & Sohn Horst Co. Sebastian Klotz Fromm, Mayer-Bass, Gmbh, L. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc
Hence making or refusing to make such an order is not appealable under section 1292(a)(1)." Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d 866, 870 (7th Cir.1985); see, e.g., Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 84-85 (2d Cir.1961) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
15 Collier bankr.cas.2d 952, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,512 Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. David L. Butler, James L. Grauer, James E. Kassis, and One City Centre Associates, a California Limited Partnership
See, e.g., Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962); Chemetron Corp. v. Business Funds, Inc., 682 F.2d 1149, 1191 (5th Cir.1982), vacated on other grounds, 460 U.S. 1007 , 103 S.Ct. 1245 , 75 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n v. Butler
See, e.g., Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962); Chemetron Corp. v. Business Funds, Inc., 682 F.2d 1149, 1191 (5th Cir.1982), vacated on other grounds, 460 U.S. 1007 , 103 S.Ct. 1245 , 75 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Societe Generale De Surveillance, S.A. v. Raytheon European Management and Systems Company
See, e. g., Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, 297 F.2d 80 , 86 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Dawson v. Lummus Co., 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962); Greater Continental Corporation v. Schecter, 422 F.2d 1100 , 1102 (2d Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Medical Development Corporation v. Industrial Molding Corporation, Medical Development Corporation v. Industrial Molding Corporation
Compare Greater Continental Corp. v. Schechter, 2 Cir., 422 F.2d 1100, 1102-1103 , and Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Refining Co., 2 Cir., 297 F.2d 80, 84-96 , cert. denied 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 , with Power Replacements, Inc. v. Air Preheater Co., 9 Cir., 426 F.2d 980, 982-983 , and A. & E.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. v. Jackson D. Leonard, D/B/A the Leonard Process Company
(2×)
Compare Lummus Company v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Company, 297 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 986 , 82 S.Ct. 601 , 7 L.Ed.2d 524 (1962); but see Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U.S. 198 , 76 S.Ct. 273 , 100 L.Ed. 199 (1956) (disapproving Judge Hand’s statement).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sinclair
v.
California
v.
California
No. 616.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 19, 1962.
Phill Silver for petitioners. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Howard S. Goldin, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Reed, R. B. Pegram, N. B. Peek and Paul E. Overton for respondents.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
District Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District. Certiorari denied.