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.
9 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 124 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 Richard Drake v. Federal Aviation Administration.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Richard Drake v. Federal Aviation Administration Anchor | green | “whether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same 'nucleus of facts.” | 36 |
| 2 | Smalls, Eugene C. v. United States | green | “a subsequent lawsuit will be barred if there has been prior litigation (1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies, and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the merits, (4) by a court of competent jurisdiction.” | 21 |
| 3 | Smalls, Eugene C. v. United States | green | “if there has been prior litigation (1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies, and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the merits, (4) by a court of competent jurisdiction.” | 17 |
| 4 | Darrell R. Page v. United States | green | “it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute the cause of action, not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies.” | 13 |
| 5 | Smalls, Eugene C. v. United States | green | “under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a subsequent lawsuit will be barred if there has been prior litigation (1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies, and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the …” | 12 |
| 6 | John Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals | green | “whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation; whether they form a convenient trial unit; and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.” | 9 |
| 7 | Hardison v. Alexander | green | “conserve judicial resources, avoid inconsistent results, engender respect for judgments of predictable and certain effect, and to prevent serial forum-shopping and piecemeal litigation.” | 8 |
| 8 | Sheppard v. District of Columbia | green | “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” | 5 |
| 9 | American Forest Resource Council v. Shea | green | “adequately represented by a party to the original 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.