§Why CasetextPricing

Maria Auqui,, et al., Respondents,v.Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, et al., Appellants.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Utah Constr. Co.

    384 U.S. 394 (1966)   Cited 1,238 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts can give preclusive effect to certain administrative proceedings

  2. Ryan v. New York Tel. Co.

    62 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 1,612 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an issue to be deemed identical “it must be the point actually to be determined in the second action or proceeding such that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.”

  3. Alba v. Raytheon Co.

    441 Mass. 836 (Mass. 2004)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that issue preclusion estopped plaintiff from relitigating issues in chapter 151B claim that were previously determined in unappealed administrative proceeding

  4. Dodd v. Hood River County

    136 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that a party may not re-ligitate in federal court an issue identical to one that has already been litigated in state court under the same standards

  5. Wickham Contracting Co. v. Board of Educ

    715 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 57 times
    Granting res judicata effect to section 8(b) unfair labor practice determination of NLRB

  6. State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

    218 Cal.App.4th 258 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 15 times

    2d Civil No. B240742 2013-08-13 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, California Insurance Guarantee Association et al., Respondents. Proceeding to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Annulled and remanded with directions. (W.C.A.B. Nos. ADJ4684775, ADJ4381820, ADJ7684775) Finnegan, Marks, Theofel & Desmond, Ellen Sims Langille, for petitioner State Farm General Insurance Company. Guilford Steiner Sarvas & Carbonara, Richard

  7. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

    83 A.D.3d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 3277. April 5, 2011. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 7, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to preclude plaintiffs from litigating the issue of plaintiff Jose Verdugo's accident-related disability beyond January 24, 2006, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 8, 2009, which, inter alia, upon

  8. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. P'ship

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 950 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    2013-02-14 Maria AUQUI, as Guardian of the Property of Jose Verdugo, et al., Respondents, v. SEVEN THIRTY ONE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al., Appellants. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Matthew W. Naparty and Richard J. Montes, of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), and Schwartz, Goldstone & Campisi, LLP, New York City (Herbert Rodriguez, Jr., of counsel), for respondents. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Matthew W. Naparty

  9. Tyco Elecs. & Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Vanpelt

    62 Va. App. 160 (Va. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    Record No. 2148–12–3. 2013-06-18 TYCO ELECTRONICS AND INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Tony Alvin VANPELT. Andrew M. Alexander (Semmes, Bowen, & Semmes, P.C., Vienna, on briefs), for appellants. John B. Krall (Ritchie Law Firm, PLC, Harrisonburg, on brief), for appellee. FRANK Andrew M. Alexander (Semmes, Bowen, & Semmes, P.C., Vienna, on briefs), for appellants. John B. Krall (Ritchie Law Firm, PLC, Harrisonburg, on brief), for appellee. Present: ELDER, FRANK and PETTY, JJ. FRANK

  10. EZ Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Cox Trailers, Inc.

    746 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding plaintiff's argument that it was unable to present its case fairly was unpersuasive because plaintiff chose not to submit certain figure into evidence