At page 798 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Doe v. Jackson Local Schs. Sch. Dist., 695 F. Supp. 2d 627 (N.D. Ohio 2010).publishedCo., 556 F.2d 798, 798 (6th Cir.1977); see also Sherman v. Ludington, No. 91-3936, 1992 WL 158878 at *6 (6th Cir.1992) (“The principle of federal res judicata is only concerned with whether the claims arise from the same operative facts, n…
- Wilkins v. Jakeway, 993 F. Supp. 635 (S.D. Ohio 1998).publishedCo., 556 F.2d 798, 798 (6th Cir.1977); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 cmt. g (1982).
Other citing cases
- Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 915 F. Supp. 885 (E.D. Mich. 1996).published
- Nat'l Acceptance Co. of Am. v. Bathalter (In Re Bathalter), 123 B.R. 568 (S.D. Ohio 1990).published
- Agnes E. NILSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the CITY OF MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee, 701 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983).published
- Jeanne HARRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VANDALIA-BUTLER Bd. OF Educ. Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, 649 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1981).published
v.
DISTEL TOOL AND MACHINE COMPANY, a Domestic Corporation and United Auto Workers of America, Local 155, Defendants-Appellees
ORDER.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case; and
Noting that the District Judge entered an order dismissing the cause of action on grounds of res judicata; and
Noting that summary judgment had previously been granted in relation to a complaint reciting the same operative facts as are involved in the instant complaint, but that appellant argues that his second cause of action should not be barred because it involves a different legal theory; and
On inspection of the two complaints, this court being convinced that the legal theory now sought to be advanced could have been advanced as a part of the original complaint and that the doctrine of res judicata bars this action, as found by the District Judge,
Now, therefore, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Association, 431 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1970). See particularly Williamson, Trustee v. Columbia Gas and Electric Corp., 186 F.2d 464, 469-70 (3d Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 743, 95 L.Ed. 1355 (1951). [1]
Entered by order of the Court.
. Atherton v. Anderson, 86 F.2d 518 (6th Cir. 1936), does not control this case in view of the significant changes in pleading practice in federal courts since Atherton was decided. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 7, 10 and 18.