10 California opinions name it 1 courts 1942–1960 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 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 | 6 | 6 |
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. | 6 | 6 |
Estate of Clarkgreen2 sentences1954(Estate of Clark, 190 Cal. 354, 360 [ 212 P. 622 ]; Hess v. Moodey, 35 Cal.App.2d 401, 408 [ 95 P.2d 699 ]; 15 Cal.Jur. 97, § 166; 2 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 1321, § 627; 15 R.C.L. 973, § 450.) . . . 1954(Estate of Clark, 190 Cal. 354, 360 [ 212 P. 622 ]; Hess v. Moodey, 35 Cal.App.2d 401, 408 [ 95 P.2d 699 ]; 15 Cal.Jur. 97, § 166; 2 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 1321, § 627; 15 R.C.L. 973, § 450.) . . . | 2 | 2 |
Hess v. Moodeygreen2 sentences1954(Estate of Clark, 190 Cal. 354, 360 [ 212 P. 622 ]; Hess v. Moodey, 35 Cal.App.2d 401, 408 [ 95 P.2d 699 ]; 15 Cal.Jur. 97, § 166; 2 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 1321, § 627; 15 R.C.L. 973, § 450.) . . . 1954(Estate of Clark, 190 Cal. 354, 360 [ 212 P. 622 ]; Hess v. Moodey, 35 Cal.App.2d 401, 408 [ 95 P.2d 699 ]; 15 Cal.Jur. 97, § 166; 2 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 1321, § 627; 15 R.C.L. 973, § 450.) . . . | 2 | 2 |
Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co.green2 sentences1947If the issue is the same the former judgment is conclusive upon it in any subsequent action between the parties and bars the right to seek a different remedy based on the same facts or cause of action.” See, also, Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 918 [ 132 P.2d 12 ], where it is said: “The doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment on the merits of a cause rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties thereto and of their privies on all material issues which were tried and determined and upon all issues which 1947If the issue is the same the former judgment is conclusive upon it in any subsequent action between the parties and bars the right to seek a different remedy based on the same facts or cause of action.” See, also, Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 918 [ 132 P.2d 12 ], where it is said: “The doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment on the merits of a cause rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties thereto and of their privies on all material issues which were tried and determined and upon all issues which | 2 | 2 |
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 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.