Evans Sheet Metal

34 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,294 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,636 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation
402 U.S. 313 (1971) Cited 2,232 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"
United States v. Mendoza
464 U.S. 154 (1984) Cited 581 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party
Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank
474 U.S. 518 (1986) Cited 454 times
Holding the relitigation exception was limited "to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue"
Smith v. Evening News Assn
371 U.S. 195 (1962) Cited 815 times
Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. Scientific Comm
523 U.S. 1020 (1998) Cited 119 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding prejudicial the potential inclusion of evidence that would have "redrawn the boundaries of the case"
Northern California v. Award Service
474 U.S. 1081 (1986) Cited 153 times
Holding that, despite the specific provisions of section 502, "an employer may bring an action under ERISA to enforce its terms where the employer alleges specific and personal injury"
Bd. of Tr. of Trucking Emp. Pen. Fd. v. Centra
983 F.2d 495 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 261 times
Holding that, under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action as a prior suit that involved the same parties, or their privies is barred where there has been a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit
Harkins et al. v. Scattered Corp.
516 U.S. 818 (1995) Cited 72 times
Stating "in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process"
Section 185 - Suits by and against labor organizations
29 U.S.C. § 185 Cited 14,713 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting federal district courts jurisdiction over breach of contract claims arising out of collective bargaining contracts
Section 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
28 U.S.C. § 1738 Cited 7,638 times 16 Legal Analyses
Referring to "[t]he Acts of the legislature" in the full faith and credit context

Evans Sheet Metal

34 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party

Holding the relitigation exception was limited "to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue"

Holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union

Finding prejudicial the potential inclusion of evidence that would have "redrawn the boundaries of the case"

Holding that, despite the specific provisions of section 502, "an employer may bring an action under ERISA to enforce its terms where the employer alleges specific and personal injury"

Holding that, under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action as a prior suit that involved the same parties, or their privies is barred where there has been a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit

Granting federal district courts jurisdiction over breach of contract claims arising out of collective bargaining contracts

Referring to "[t]he Acts of the legislature" in the full faith and credit context