green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
10.8 score
“a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative.”
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Massey v. David
a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Intercept Security Corp. v. Code-Alarm, Inc.
person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stogniew v. McQueen
a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast
the res judicata effects of a judgment are determined by the law of the court that rendered the judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lubrizol Corporation v. Exxon Corporation
looking beyond the pleadings to what could have been pleaded, however, is precisely what is required by the federal law of res judicata
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp.
looking beyond the pleadings to what could have been pleaded, however, is precisely what is required by the federal law of res judicata
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,484 John F. Maher v. Zapata Corporation v. William Maldonado, Objector-Appellant
... all claims and defenses that were actually raised or could have been raised
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. Smith
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.) (subsequent suit by a non-party may be precluded “if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with [the non-party’s] interests as to be his virtual representative”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Carlin v. Gold Hawk Joint Venture
See Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 716-18 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Meadows v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
Robinson v. National Cash Register Co., 808 F.2d 1119, 1124 (5th Cir.1987); See Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
J. Dale Mann, Cross-Appellee v. City of Albany, Georgia, a Municipal Corporation, Cross-Appellant, Washington Long
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, Llc v. Nl Industries, Inc.
See Alleghany, 344 F.2d at 574 . 34 "The question whether a party's interests in a case are virtually representative of the interest of a nonparty is one of fact for the trial court." Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Cleveland Gear Corp.
See Aerojet-General Co. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph Gelb v. Royal Globe Insurance Company
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); accord Precision Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corp., 736 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 966 , 83 L.Ed.2d 970 (1985); Harrison v. Celotex Corp., 583 F.Supp. 1497 (E.D.Tenn.1984); Fraley v. American Cyanamid Co., 570 F.Supp. 497 (D.Colo.1983); J.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gelb v. Royal Globe Insurance
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); accord Precision Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corp., 736 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 105 S.Ct. 966 , 83 L.Ed.2d 970 (1985); Harrison v. Celotex Corp., 583 F.Supp. 1497 (E.D.Tenn.1984); Fraley v. American Cyanamid Co., 570 F.Supp. 497 (D.Colo.1983); J.
cited
Cited "see"
Gregory Marketing Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp.
See Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 716-718 (4 Cir.), cert. den. 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Kern v. Hettinger, 303 F.2d 333, 340 (2 Cir.1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Crane v. Commissioner of Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources
See Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Grossman v. Axelrod, 466 F.Supp. at 774-75 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Equitec Leasing Investors 1978
See In Re Wesco Products Co., 22 B.R. 107 (N.D.Ill.1982), and Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 366 F.Supp. 901 (N.D.Fla.1978), aff'd. 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bud Antle, Inc. v. Eastern Foods, Inc.
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 514 F.2d 1072 , cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d without opinion, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McCoy Restaurants, Inc.
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Albanese v. Emerson Electric Co.
See Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 715 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Kern v. Hettinger, 303 F.2d 333, 340 (2d Cir.1962); Restatement Judgments 2d § 87, Comment b (1982) (better reasoned rule is to apply federal law of collateral estoppel in federal court).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vulcan, Inc. v. Fordees Corporation
(2×)
See Aerojet-General Co. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated v. Helen Echo Haydu
See Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, et a1., 511 F.2d 710 , 717 & n.9 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Itt Rayonier, Incorporated
See Ma Chuck Moon v. Dulles, supra. Courts have recognized that a non-party may be bound if a party is so closely aligned with its interests as to be its “virtual representative.” Aerojet Gen'l Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 719 (5th Cir.) (and cases cited), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eagle Transport Ltd., Inc. v. O'CONNOR
See Fisser v. International Bank, supra. Nor do they alone establish that O’Connor & Sons was Atlantic’s “virtual representative”, Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 719 (5th Cir. 1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975), or possessed such an “identity of interest”, Kreager v. General Electric Co., 497 F.2d 468, 472 (2d Cir. 1974), with Atlantic as to render it the latter’s privy.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eugene A. CEMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Accord, Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 716-18 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); see also Atkins v. Schmutz Manufacturing Co., 435 F.2d 527, 535-37 (4th Cir. 1970) (en banc), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 932 , 91 S.Ct. 1526 , 28 L.Ed.2d 867 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nunez Nunez v. Vazquez Irizarry
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.) (holding that, under federal law, “a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gonzalez Abreau v. Banco Central
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.) (holding that, under federal law, “a person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative”), cer t. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Heney v. Windsor Corp.
“Where the first suit is brought in state court and the second suit is brought in federal court based on diversity, state law of res judicata is to be applied.” Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1107 , 106 S.Ct. 1513 , 89 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986); see also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 , 718 n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Metropolitan Dade County v. Aerojet-General Corp., 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
The Lubrizol Corporation v. Exxon Corporation and Exxon Research and Engineering Company
See also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 715-18 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fine v. Commissioner
See also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew , 511 F.2d 710 , 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S. Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975) ; 18 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice § 4457 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pilié v. Graham
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982); Degnan, supra. Yet most who advocate a uniform rule also call for exceptions that would allow a state court, when it is the second forum, to apply its own state rules instead of the federal rules to matters not affecting the core principles of res judicata.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pilie & Pilie v. Metz
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982); Degnan, supra. Yet most who advocate a uniform rule also call for exceptions that would allow a state court, when it is the second forum, to apply its own state rules instead of the federal rules to matters not affecting the core principles of res judicata.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Falk v. Hecker (In Re Falk)
See also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Insurance Company v. Gates Learjet Corporation
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 716-17 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Kern v. Hettinger, 303 F.2d 333, 340 (2d Cir.1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gaspersohn Ex Rel. Gaspersohn v. Harnett County Board of Education
(2×)
See, e.g., Baker v. Owen, 395 F. Supp. 294 (M.D.N.C. 1975), aff’d, 423 U.S. 907 , 46 L.Ed. 2d 137 , 96 S.Ct. 210 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Precision Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corporation
See also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Geophysical Corp.
See also Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); 18 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice § 4457 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Spiker v. Capitol Milk Producers Cooperative, Inc.
See, e.g., Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 378 F.2d 876 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 571 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
Compare Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975), and Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d without opinion, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1976) (applying federal law of res judicata and collateral estoppel), with McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 502 F.Supp. 335, 338-39 (S.D.Miss.1980) (applying state law of collateral estoppel).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Vivian Warren v. Government National Mortgage Association
(4×)
Compare, e. g., FNMA v. Howlett, 521 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Mo. en banc) appeal dismissed 423 U.S. 909 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); Warren v. GNMA, 521 S.W.2d 441 (Mo. en banc 1975).
Howlett
v.
Federal National Mortgage Assn.
v.
Federal National Mortgage Assn.
No. 75-5081.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 1975.
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.