Sabine Towing & Transportation Co.

12 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,298 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 3,642 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"
Commissioner v. Sunnen
333 U.S. 591 (1948) Cited 1,750 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a court has entered a final judgment dismissing a claim, the parties to the suit are precluded from relitigating it
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.
349 U.S. 322 (1955) Cited 889 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"
Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.
351 U.S. 105 (1956) Cited 294 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot
Southern Pacific Railr'd v. United States
168 U.S. 1 (1897) Cited 728 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting that the "general rule" of issue preclusion "is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been established"
Cromwell v. County of Sac
94 U.S. 351 (1876) Cited 1,575 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding for the purpose of res judicata that, because the two suits involved separate contracts, a prior suit for recovery of coupons attached to bonds did not involve the same claim as a later suit for recovery of later maturing coupons attached to the same bonds
Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.
244 U.S. 294 (1917) Cited 247 times
Relying on Kessler to reason that "rights once established by final judgment of a court ... shall be recognized by those who are bound by it in every way"
Stevenson v. Intl. Paper Co., Mobile, Alabama
516 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1975) Cited 128 times
Holding the power to enjoin application of a seniority system must be limited to the requirements of Title VII

Sabine Towing & Transportation Co.

12 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 that when a court has entered a final judgment dismissing a claim, the parties to the suit are precluded from relitigating it

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

Noting that the "general rule" of issue preclusion "is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been established"

Holding for the purpose of res judicata that, because the two suits involved separate contracts, a prior suit for recovery of coupons attached to bonds did not involve the same claim as a later suit for recovery of later maturing coupons attached to the same bonds

Relying on Kessler to reason that "rights once established by final judgment of a court ... shall be recognized by those who are bound by it in every way"

Holding the power to enjoin application of a seniority system must be limited to the requirements of Title VII