Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 California opinions name it 3 courts 1953–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
French v. Rishellgreen2 sentences2014“The doctrine of res judicata is applicable where the identical issue was decided in a prior case by a final judgment on the merits and the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” (French v. Rishell (1953) 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 , italics added.) Here, Marjorie was a party in the Madera County case and is the party against whom res judicata is being asserted in this case. 1984In a case similar to the present one, involving the widow of an Oakland fireman, the firemen’s relief and pension fund, and a decision by the Industrial Accident Commission, the California Supreme Court noted that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata is applicable where the identical issue was decided in a prior case by a final judgment on the merits and the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” (French v. Rishell (1953) 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ].) Thus, three requirements exist which must be met in order to give res judi | 5 | 7 |
Kuchel v. Tolhurstgreen2 sentences1975(Kuchel v. Tolhurst (1952) 39 Cal.2d 224, 228 [ 246 P.2d 41 ].) McElhinney has paid the tax in full from money for which she is accountable as administratrix. 1975(Kuchel v. Tolhurst (1952) 39 Cal.2d 224, 228 [ 246 P.2d 41 ].) McElhinney has paid the tax in full from money for which she is accountable as administratrix. | 1 | 1 |
Stafford v. Waregreen2 sentences1962The judgment in Boyar decreed that “plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.” “Disregarding the criticised statement, the balance of the court's findings and conclusions of law fully declare the rights of the parties under the contract, and are entirely responsive to the issues raised at the trial.” (Boyar v. Krech, supra, 10 Cal.2d 207, 210, 211 .) See also Taylor v. Selig, 28 Cal.2d 634 [ 170 P.2d 913 ]; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Declaratory Relief, § 51, p. 189.) *500 Finally, it is stated in French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]: “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable wher 1962The judgment in Boyar decreed that “plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.” “Disregarding the criticised statement, the balance of the court's findings and conclusions of law fully declare the rights of the parties under the contract, and are entirely responsive to the issues raised at the trial.” (Boyar v. Krech, supra, 10 Cal.2d 207, 210, 211 .) See also Taylor v. Selig, 28 Cal.2d 634 [ 170 P.2d 913 ]; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Declaratory Relief, § 51, p. 189.) *500 Finally, it is stated in French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]: “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable wher | 1 | 1 |
Boyar v. Krechgreen1 sentence1962The judgment in Boyar decreed that “plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.” “Disregarding the criticised statement, the balance of the court's findings and conclusions of law fully declare the rights of the parties under the contract, and are entirely responsive to the issues raised at the trial.” (Boyar v. Krech, supra, 10 Cal.2d 207, 210, 211 .) See also Taylor v. Selig, 28 Cal.2d 634 [ 170 P.2d 913 ]; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Declaratory Relief, § 51, p. 189.) *500 Finally, it is stated in French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]: “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable wher | 1 | 1 |
Dillard v. McKnightgreen2 sentences1960(French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ] ; Dillard v. McKnight, 34 Cal.2d 209, 213 [ 209 P.2d 387 , 11 A.L.R.2d 835 ] ; Bliss v. Security-First Nat. 1960(French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ] ; Dillard v. McKnight, 34 Cal.2d 209, 213 [ 209 P.2d 387 , 11 A.L.R.2d 835 ] ; Bliss v. Security-First Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Wynn v. Treasure Co.green2 sentences1960We are told this, in French v. Rishell (1953), 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26, 27 ] : “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable where the identical issue was decided in a prior case by a final judgment on the merits and the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” A slightly broader statement of the principle was stated in Wynn v. Treasure Co. (1956), 146 Cal.App.2d 69, 78 [ 303 P.2d 1067, 1073 ] : “The doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment on the merits of a cause rendered by a court of competent juris 1960We are told this, in French v. Rishell (1953), 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26, 27 ] : “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable where the identical issue was decided in a prior case by a final judgment on the merits and the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” A slightly broader statement of the principle was stated in Wynn v. Treasure Co. (1956), 146 Cal.App.2d 69, 78 [ 303 P.2d 1067, 1073 ] : “The doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment on the merits of a cause rendered by a court of competent juris | 1 | 1 |
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Associationgreen2 sentences1953(Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 813 [ 122 P.2d 892 ].) No question is raised as to the identity of the issue involved or *480 as to whether the decision of the commission is a final adjudication, but defendants claim that a decision of the commission is not binding in this type of case and that the pension board is not bound because it was not a party to the prior proceeding. 1953(Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 813 [ 122 P.2d 892 ].) No question is raised as to the identity of the issue involved or *480 as to whether the decision of the commission is a final adjudication, but defendants claim that a decision of the commission is not binding in this type of case and that the pension board is not bound because it was not a party to the prior proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Res Judicata The doctrine of res judicata is applicable " 'if (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding.' " ( Villacres , supra , 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 , 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 .) "A court-approved settlement in a prior suit precludes subsequent litigation on the same cause of action. 2018Res Judicata The doctrine of res judicata is applicable " 'if (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding.' " ( Villacres , supra , 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 577 , 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 .) "A court-approved settlement in a prior suit precludes subsequent litigation on the same cause of action. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Branson v. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CA.
green
1 sentence2014The demurrer was accordingly properly sustained as to Chase and 6 Despite case law establishing that it is the harm suffered rather than the legal theory alleged that determines whether two lawsuits involve the same primary right, Tabrizi relies on Branson v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 327 to argue that his lawsuit is not barred by res judicata because it is purportedly based on contractual theories while the former lawsuits were purportedly based on statutory theories. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
green
1 sentence2014"Hence a judgment for the defendant is a bar to a subsequent action by the plaintiff based on the same injury to the same right, even though he presents a different legal ground for relief." ' " (Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 798 .) In sum, we conclude that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to Tabrizi's claims in this lawsuit. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Taylor v. Selig
green
2 sentences1962The judgment in Boyar decreed that “plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.” “Disregarding the criticised statement, the balance of the court's findings and conclusions of law fully declare the rights of the parties under the contract, and are entirely responsive to the issues raised at the trial.” (Boyar v. Krech, supra, 10 Cal.2d 207, 210, 211 .) See also Taylor v. Selig, 28 Cal.2d 634 [ 170 P.2d 913 ]; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Declaratory Relief, § 51, p. 189.) *500 Finally, it is stated in French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]: “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable wher 1962The judgment in Boyar decreed that “plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.” “Disregarding the criticised statement, the balance of the court's findings and conclusions of law fully declare the rights of the parties under the contract, and are entirely responsive to the issues raised at the trial.” (Boyar v. Krech, supra, 10 Cal.2d 207, 210, 211 .) See also Taylor v. Selig, 28 Cal.2d 634 [ 170 P.2d 913 ]; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Declaratory Relief, § 51, p. 189.) *500 Finally, it is stated in French v. Rishell, 40 Cal.2d 477, 479 [ 254 P.2d 26 ]: “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable wher | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.