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.
6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 158 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 David Beasley v. William Howard.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | David Beasley v. William Howard Anchor | 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.” | 45 |
| 2 | Frederick Weinberg v. Scott E Kaplan LLC | green | “with respect to affirmative defenses, such as res judicata, dismissal is proper if application of the defense is apparent on the face of the complaint; the court may also look beyond the complaint to public records, including judicial proceedings.” | 32 |
| 3 | 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.” | 30 |
| 4 | 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.” | 27 |
| 5 | Gimenez v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. | green | “a dismissal under the in forma pauperis statute . . . qualifies as an adjudication on the merits carrying preclusive effect for purposes of any future in forma pauperis actions raising the same claim.” | 18 |
| 6 | Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp. | green | “the fact that there are additional parties in sheridan ii does not affect our conclusion” | 6 |
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.