How cited: Western Radio Services Company, Inc. v. Glickman · Go Syfert

Western Radio Services Company, Inc. v. Glickman (1997)

green · 268 citation events across 19 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Co. Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 3 citations in this opinion
Co. Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).
green Warfield v. Nance (2025)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
For claim preclusion “to apply there must be: 1) an identity of claims, 2) a final judgment on the merits, and 3) identity or privity between parties.” Glickman, 123 F.3d at 1192.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1150 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
quotation marks and citation omitted
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., 123 F.3d at 1192.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Radio Servs., 123 F.3d at 1192.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189,1192 (9th Cir.1997).
green Knox v. Potter (2005)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co, 123 F.3d at 1192 (doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits and an identity of parties).
doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits and an identity of parties
green Knox v. Potter (2005)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co, 123 F.3d at 1192 (doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits and an identity of parties).
doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits and an identity of parties
green Magiera v. Norton (2004)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (alteration in the original).
green Glair v. Cabrera (2001)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, see Western Radio Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that a final agency action must “mark the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process,” thus implying that a process of deci-sionmaking must be underway).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining that a final agency action must "mark the 'consummation' of the agency's decisionmaking process," thus implying that a process of decisionmaking must be underway).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997) (“The APA thus insulates from immediate judicial review the agency’s preliminary or procedural steps.”).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997) ("The APA thus insulates from immediate judicial review the agency's preliminary or procedural steps.").
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 13 123 F.3d at 1192 (citation omitted). 14 1.
citation omitted
Rule Authority · C.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997) (“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action”).
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. *1091 1997).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
W. 9 Radio Servs., 123 F.3d at 1192. 10 According to Foothill, based on collateral estoppel or res judicata, the panel’s findings as 11 to Zhang and Xia’s breach of contract claim bar Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act and unfair competition 12 claims in this case.
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
green Kransky v. Gigliotti (2024)
Rule Authority · D. Mont.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
Co., 7 || Inc., v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997). 8 As to identity of claims, plaintiff concedes that the instant federal action involves the 9 || “same causes of action and same parties/litigants” as the state court action.
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., 123 F.3d at 1192. 4 In any event, the same conclusions in our decision dismissing the prior action would 5 apply to plaintiff’s unpled retirement benefits claim, rendering any further amendment futile. 6 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained: 7 As a general matter, the Civil Service Reform Act [(CSRA)] and Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act preclude district court 8 review of challenges to federal employee retirement…
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash.
Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 26 721 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Glickman, 123 F.3d at 1192).
Rule Authority · D. Ariz.
Co., 10 Inc., v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
green Brooks v. Tenney (2023)
Quote Authority · W.D. Wash.
Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 , 1192 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Res judicata, 11 also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised 12 or could have been raised in the prior action.”); Shavlik v. Snohomish Cnty.
“Res judicata, 11 also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised 12 or could have been raised in the prior action.”
Rule Authority · D. Ariz.
“Res judicata, however, may be asserted in 7 a motion to dismiss so long as it does not raise any disputed issues of fact.” Id. (citing Scott 8 v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) and Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807 , 811 9 (2d Cir. 1992)). 10 “Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action 11 of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” Western Radio 12 Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d …
citations omitted
Quote Authority · S.D. Cal.
Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 , 1192 (9th Cir. 10 1997) (“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a 11 subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the 12 prior action.”). 13 The County Conservators Office is merely a subunit of the County and is not 14 a proper party.
“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a 11 subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the 12 prior action.”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1996 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 5 U.S. 154 , 177–78 (1997) (“final agency action” is the “consummation of the agency’s 6 decisionmaking process” from which “legal consequences will flow”).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., 6 123 F.3d at 1192.
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash.
Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 4 721 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Glickman, 123 F.3d at 1192).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 16 1997).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., 27 123 F.3d at 1192.
Rule Authority · D. Haw.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997).
Rule Authority · D. Or.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Drews v. EBI Cos., 310 Or. 134, 140 , 795 P.2d 531 (1990) (a plaintiff who has litigated against a defendant through final judgment is precluded from bringing a lawsuit arising from the same factual transaction against the same defendant).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · C.D. Cal.
The doctrine is applicable whenever there is “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or *1149 privity between parties.” Owens, supra, 244 F.3d at 713 ; Western Radio, supra, 123 F.3d at 1192 (same); Robi supra, 838 F.2d at 324 (same).
same
green Riverhawks v. Zepeda (2002)
Rule Authority · D. Or.
The action must also be “one by which ‘rights or obligations have been determined,’ or from which ‘legal consequences will flow.’ ” Id. (quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71 , 91 S.Ct. 203 , 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970)); West *1180 ern Radio Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.1997).
Rule Authority · E.D. Wash.
Western Radio Services Co., Inc., v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1196-97 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 168 , 117 S.Ct. 1154 , 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)).
green De Perio v. Gonzales (2007)
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Western Radio, 123 F.3d at 1192 (emphasis added).
emphasis added
Cited · 9th Cir. · signal: see
See Western Radio, 123 F.3d at 1192 (doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits, and an identity of parties).
doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits, and an identity of parties
green Castellanos v. Zieve (2023)
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See id.
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See id.
Cited · D. Or. · signal: see
See Glickman, 123 F.3d at 1192.
Cited · N.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Western Radio v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 , 1195 (9th Cir.1997) (holding tower and access road for tower not connected actions where tower could function independently of road). b.
green Sierra Club v. Babbitt (1999)
Cited · E.D. Cal. · signal: see
See Western Radio Services v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 , 1195 (9th Cir.1997) (projects trigger one another if they cannot function without the other).