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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
L'AnzA Research International, Inc. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc., a New York Corporationgreen1 sentence2022(Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1218 (Association of Irritated Residents) [“Because it is a question of law, we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that res judicata was applicable in this case”].) Under title 11 of United States Code section 502, subdivision (a), “[a] claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title . . . , is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.” The “allowance or disallowance of ‘a claim in bankruptcy is binding and conclusive on all parties or their privies, | 1 | 1 |
Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservationgreen1 sentence2022(Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1218 (Association of Irritated Residents) [“Because it is a question of law, we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that res judicata was applicable in this case”].) Under title 11 of United States Code section 502, subdivision (a), “[a] claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title . . . , is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.” The “allowance or disallowance of ‘a claim in bankruptcy is binding and conclusive on all parties or their privies, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Union Pacific Railroad v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017We review de novo a trial court's ruling on the application of the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion. ( Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 134 , 156, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 .) We affirm the Support Order. 2017We review de novo a trial court's ruling on the application of the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion. ( Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 134 , 156, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 .) We affirm the Support Order. | 3 | 2017–2024 |
DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber
green
2 sentences2017The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion " 'prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.' " ( DKN, supra , 61 Cal.4th at p. 824 , 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 .) "Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit." ( Ibid. ) The doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents "the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even of the second suit raises d 2017The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion " 'prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.' " ( DKN, supra , 61 Cal.4th at p. 824 , 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 .) "Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit." ( Ibid. ) The doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel prevents "the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even of the second suit raises d | 3 | 2017–2024 |
Lucido v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2022We have repeatedly looked to the public policies underlying the doctrine before concluding that [res judicata] should be applied in a particular setting. [Citation.]” (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335 , 342–343.) We review de novo the court’s application of the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
green
2 sentences2020And it is, we think, the meaning intended in those many statements to the effect that a judgment ‘on the merits’ triggers the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion.” ( Semtek, supra, 531 U.S. at pp. 501-502.) “But over the years the meaning of the term ‘judgment on the merits’ ‘has gradually undergone change,’ [citation], and it has come to be applied to some judgments (such as the one involved here) that do not pass upon the substantive merits of a claim and hence do not (in many jurisdictions) entail claim-preclusive effect.” (Semtek,supra, 531 U.S. at p. 502 , original italics.) “In 2020And it is, we think, the meaning intended in those many statements to the effect that a judgment ‘on the merits’ triggers the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion.” ( Semtek, supra, 531 U.S. at pp. 501-502.) “But over the years the meaning of the term ‘judgment on the merits’ ‘has gradually undergone change,’ [citation], and it has come to be applied to some judgments (such as the one involved here) that do not pass upon the substantive merits of a claim and hence do not (in many jurisdictions) entail claim-preclusive effect.” (Semtek,supra, 531 U.S. at p. 502 , original italics.) “In | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.