In Re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Conopco, Inc. v. Roll International Corp. (nysd, 1999-11-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Conopco, Inc. v. Roll International Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit briefly discussed § 426.30 in In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Klein & Vibber, P.C. v. Collard & Roe P.C.
D. Conn. · 1998 · confidence medium
See also Continental Time Corp. v. Swiss Credit Bank, 543 F.Supp. 408, 410 (S.D.N.Y.1982); In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir.1977) (per curiam) (dismissal proper because prior action will bar instant claim when it is concluded).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G & T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · confidence medium
A final judgment is res judicata not only for all matters pleaded, but all matters that might have been pleaded, which is to say, for “all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit.” In re Interstate Stores, 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir.1977) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Ass'n of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers v. Department of Health & Human Services
S.D.N.Y. · 1984 · confidence medium
Teltronics Services, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc., 642 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 452 U.S. 960 , 101 S.Ct. 3108 , 60 L.Ed.2d 971 (1981), citing, In re Interstate Stores, 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir.1977). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chira v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1981 · confidence medium
As the Court of Appeals unambiguously observed in its recent opinion in Teltronics Services, Inc. v. L M Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc. (2d Cir. 1981) 642 F.2d 31, 35 , a final judgment pursuant to a Rule 41(b) dismissal “is res judicata ‘not only to all matters pleaded, but to all that might have been’ and ‘not only as to all matters litigated and decided by it, but as to all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit.’ In re Interstate Stores, 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 735 [, 66 S.Ct. 85…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teltronics Services, Inc. v. L M Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
This court has emphasized that a final judgment is res judicata “not only to all matters pleaded, but to all that might have been” and “not only as to all matters litigated and decided by it, but as to all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit.” In re Interstate Stores, 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 735 , 66 S.Ct. 853, 857 , 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946)); see Herendeen v. Champion International Corp., 525 F.2d 130, 133 (2d Cir. 1975). 6 In this case the same parties, the same cause of action and the sa…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Kaplan
N.D. Ill. · 1980 · confidence medium
Once a final judgment is entered on that cause of action, res judicata prohibits relitigation of all issues raised therein as well as “all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit.” In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Cromwell, 94 U.S. at 352; F. L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neeld v. National Hockey League
W.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
Bank v. Law, 10 F.2d 721, 724 (2d Cir. 1926), in which the Honorable Learned Hand stated that the bar extends “not only to all matters pleaded, but to all that might have been * * The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, citing Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 735 , 66 S.Ct. 853 , 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946), has recently observed in a per curiam opinion, In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977), that a final judgment is res judicata “not only as to all matters litigated and decided by it, but as to all relevant issues which could have been but were not …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." UC Solutions, LLC v. Shapiro
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re 3 Shapiro and Paz appealed this decision on February 20, 2024. -5- Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal because a separate and ongoing action, in which the instant claim could have been but was not raised, would have barred this case upon its conclusion); cf. Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Est. of Warhol, 764 F. Supp. 43, 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (finding that parties could split their claims arising out of a single transaction between litigation and an ongoing arbitration only because the parties had consented to claim splitting).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schlaifer Nance & Co., Inc. v. Estate of Warhol
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir.1977) (per curiam) (dismissal proper because prior action will bar instant claim when it is concluded); Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 429 F.2d 1197, 1201-04 (2d Cir.1970). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Interstate Stores, Inc., Debtors. California Wholesale Electric Company, Formerly Known as Esgro, Inc.
v.
Joseph R. Crowley and Herbert B. Siegel, as Reorganization Trustees for Interstate Stores, Inc., Debtors
895.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 10, 1977.
558 F.2d 1046
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

558 F.2d 1046

In re INTERSTATE STORES, INC., et al., Debtors.
CALIFORNIA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC COMPANY, formerly known as
Esgro, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Joseph R. CROWLEY and Herbert B. Siegel, as Reorganization
Trustees for Interstate Stores, Inc., et al.,
Debtors, Appellees.

No. 895, Docket 76-5044.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 25, 1977.
Decided June 10, 1977.

Bruce R. Zirinsky, New York City, for appellant.

Daniel L. Carroll, New York City, for appellees.

Before MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge, SMITH, Chief Judge,[*] and PALMIERI, District Judge.[**]

PER CURIAM:

1

The issues presented by this appeal are moot, and the appeal is dismissed.

2

The claims and cross claims involved all arose out of the licensing agreement between White Front Stores, Inc. and Esgro, Inc. The claims and cross claims were the subject of an action brought in a superior court in California. In a Chapter X proceeding pending in the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, claims duplicative of those asserted by Esgro, Inc. in the California lawsuit were filed. By an order filed November 23, 1976, and explained in an opinion filed March 17, 1977 (In re Interstate Stores, Inc., 551 F.2d 1332 (2d Cir.)), this court directed that the parties proceed in California.

3

Esgro, Inc. filed in the Chapter X proceeding in New York an amended claim which expanded its allegations of fraud. The district court entered an order striking the amended claim and later denied a motion to vacate that order. This appeal is from the latter order.

4

Whether the court erred in striking the amended claim is of no significance. It is apparent from the order and opinion of this court in the former appeal that all of the controversies arising out of the licensing agreement were directed to be tried in the California action. Neither the order nor the opinion contains any limiting language, and under California law the expanded issue of fraud sought to be introduced into the New York proceeding, if properly and timely presented, could have been tried in the California action and, if not tried there, was barred. Cal.Code Civ.P. §§ 426.10 and 426.30. When the California action is concluded, it will be res judicata "not only as to all matters litigated and decided by it, but as to all relevant issues which could have been but were not raised and litigated in the suit." Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 735, 66 S.Ct. 853, 857, 90 L.Ed. 970 (1946). The final judgment in the California action will be the sole basis for any claim in the New York Chapter X proceeding.

*

Of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation

**

Of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation