re-litigation claim in Virginia

2013It “ ‘precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’ ” Id. (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va.App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2013It “ ‘precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’ ” Id. (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va.App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2022Res judicata The principle of res judicata “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Tyco Elecs. v. Vanpelt, 62 Va. App. 160, 171 (2013) (quoting Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 128 (1999)).

2005“The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full commission---- [and] ‘precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’ ” Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va.App. 119, 128 , 510 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1999) (en banc) (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va.App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2013It “ ‘precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’ ” Id. (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va.App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2010It “‘precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’” Id. (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2025Co. of Pa. v. Vanpelt, 62 Va. App. 160, 171 (2013).

2022Res judicata The principle of res judicata “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Tyco Elecs. v. Vanpelt, 62 Va. App. 160, 171 (2013) (quoting Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 128 (1999)).

2015“The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full [C]ommission. . . . [and] precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Pruden, 45 Va. App. at 573 , 612 S.E.2d at 742 (quoting Rusty’s Welding Serv.

2015“The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full [C]ommission. . . . [and] precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Pruden, 45 Va. App. at 573 , 612 S.E.2d at 742 (quoting Rusty’s Welding Serv.

2010As the party seeking the application of the doctrine, “the employer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the issue previously raised was decided on the merits.” Id. (citing Fodi’s v. Rutherford, 26 Va. App. 446, 449 , 495 S.E.2d 503, 505 (1998)).

2010As the party seeking the application of the doctrine, “the employer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the issue previously raised was decided on the merits.” Id. (citing Fodi’s v. Rutherford, 26 Va. App. 446, 449 , 495 S.E.2d 503, 505 (1998)).

2000Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 617-18 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989)). “[A] judgment is not final for the purposes of res judicata ... when it is being appealed.... ” Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 419 , 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992).

2000Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 617-18 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989)). “[A] judgment is not final for the purposes of res judicata ... when it is being appealed.... ” Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 419 , 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992).

2025Similarly, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar the Commission from modifying an award when there is clear evidence of fraud, mistake, or imposition.5 See Harris, 184 Va. at 720 (holding that the Commission has the power to protect its awards from mistakes); Carpenter, 29 Va. App. at 226 (holding that a weekly wage may be modified when there has been a 5 Res judicata generally “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Tyco Elecs. & Ins.

2025Similarly, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar the Commission from modifying an award when there is clear evidence of fraud, mistake, or imposition.5 See Harris, 184 Va. at 720 (holding that the Commission has the power to protect its awards from mistakes); Carpenter, 29 Va. App. at 226 (holding that a weekly wage may be modified when there has been a 5 Res judicata generally “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Tyco Elecs. & Ins.

2022It bars from consideration “[c]laims . . . ‘made or tendered by the pleadings [in the earlier litigation],’ as well as those ‘incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation, whether the same, as a matter of fact, were or were not considered.’” Brock, 59 Va. App. at 46 (quoting Lofton Ridge, LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry., 268 Va. 377, 381 (2004)).

2019“The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full commission. . . . [and] precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.” Levy v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 68 Va. App. 575, 579 (2018) (quoting Pruden v. Plasser Am.

2018See Rhoten v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 262 , 267, 750 S.E.2d 110 , 112 (2013). “‘The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full commission. . . . [and] “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’”” Pruden v. Plasser Am.

2018See Rhoten v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 262 , 267, 750 S.E.2d 110 , 112 (2013). “‘The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full commission. . . . [and] “precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.’”” Pruden v. Plasser Am.

2013Virginia’s application of the claim preclusion component of res judicata was best stated a century ago: “Every litigant should have opportunity to present whatever grievance he may have” but if given an opportunity to do so and “having failed to avail himself of it, he must accept the consequences.” Miller v. Smith, 109 Va. 651, 655 , 64 S.E. 956, 957 (1909).

2013Virginia’s application of the claim preclusion component of res judicata was best stated a century ago: “Every litigant should have opportunity to present whatever grievance he may have” but if given an opportunity to do so and “having failed to avail himself of it, he must accept the consequences.” Miller v. Smith, 109 Va. 651, 655 , 64 S.E. 956, 957 (1909).

2000Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 617-18 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989)). “[A] judgment is not final for the purposes of res judicata ... when it is being appealed.... ” Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 419 , 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992).

2000Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va.App. 614, 617-18 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1989)). “[A] judgment is not final for the purposes of res judicata ... when it is being appealed.... ” Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 419 , 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992).

2000"The bar of res judicata precludes relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof, which could have been litigated between the same parties . . . ." Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (citations omitted). "[A]s a general proposition a judgment of dismissal which expressly provides that it is 'with prejudice' operates as res judicata and is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final disposition . . . ." Virginia Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956)

2000"The bar of res judicata precludes relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof, which could have been litigated between the same parties . . . ." Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (citations omitted). "[A]s a general proposition a judgment of dismissal which expressly provides that it is 'with prejudice' operates as res judicata and is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final disposition . . . ." Virginia Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956)

2000"The bar of res judicata precludes relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof, which could have been litigated between the same parties . . . ." Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (citations omitted). "[A]s a general proposition a judgment of dismissal which expressly provides that it is 'with prejudice' operates as res judicata and is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final disposition . . . ." Virginia Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956)

2000"The bar of res judicata precludes relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof, which could have been litigated between the same parties . . . ." Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (citations omitted). "[A]s a general proposition a judgment of dismissal which expressly provides that it is 'with prejudice' operates as res judicata and is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final disposition . . . ." Virginia Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfax County, 197 Va. 821, 825 , 91 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1956)