Topic: strangers to the state court proceedings · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #21480

6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 19 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 County of Imperial v. Munoz.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 County of Imperial v. Munoz Anchor
scotus · 1980
green “strangers to the state court proceedings” 4
2 Henry Malachowski and Julia Malachowski v. City of Keene
ca1 · 1986
green “bad faith prosecution, harassment or any other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief.” 3
3 Wilder v. Thomas
ca2 · 1988
green “do not vary according to individual plaintiffs” 3
4 Raymond P. Zajac and Helen Ann Zajac v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul
ca8 · 1990
green “past abuses of state court foreclosure proceedings.” 3
5 Duncan v. TOWN OF BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA
vawd · 1973
green “the bare fact that one plaintiff is joined with others who were parties and who can properly be bound by a prior proceeding does not justify preclusion of the nonparty plaintiff as well.” 3
6 Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nesglo, Inc.
prsupreme · 1981
green “when the applicant claims a right or interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action which may as a practical matter be impaired by the final disposition of the action” 3

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.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check