6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 152 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Marmon Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Marmon Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Anchor | green | “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.” | 48 |
| 2 | David Beasley v. William Howard | green | “the prior judgment's preclusive effect . . . extends not only to the claims that the plaintiff brought in the first action, but also to any claims the plaintiff could have asserted in the previous lawsuit.” | 26 |
| 3 | David Beasley v. William Howard | green | “claim preclusion - which some courts and commentators also call res judicata - protects defendants from the risk of repetitious suits involving the same cause of action once a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits.” | 25 |
| 4 | Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp. | green | “rather than resting on the specific legal theory invoked, res judicata generally is thought to turn on the essential similarity of the underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.” | 24 |
| 5 | David Beasley v. William Howard | green | “claim preclusion similarly reaches theories of recovery: a plaintiff who asserts a different theory of recovery in a separate lawsuit cannot avoid claim preclusion when the events underlying the two suits are essentially the same.” | 24 |
| 6 | Marmon Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs | green | “a party seeking to invoke res judicata must establish three elements: '(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.