7 Cited authorities

Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,591 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"
Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine
444 Mass. 837 (Mass. 2005) Cited 257 times
Holding that claim preclusion requires prior final judgment on the merits, as well as privity of the parties and identity of the cause of action
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Cited 207 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby
In re Sonus Networks
499 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) Cited 144 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that although res judicata is an affirmative defense, where the defendant raises the issue by a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff does not object to the procedure, the court may resolve the issue on such a motion
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) Cited 82 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”
Commissioner of the Dept. of Emp. Tr. v. Dugan
428 Mass. 138 (Mass. 1998) Cited 52 times
Reasoning that "[i]n some cases, even if there is a lack of total identity between the issues involved in two adjudications, the overlap may be so substantial that preclusion is plainly appropriate."
Commercial Associates v. Tilcon Gammino, Inc.
998 F.2d 1092 (1st Cir. 1993) Cited 37 times
Finding state statute does not abrogate court's discretion to determine whether and to what extent prejudgment interest is awarded

In Re: Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

7 Cited authorities

Montana v. United States

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"

Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine

Holding that claim preclusion requires prior final judgment on the merits, as well as privity of the parties and identity of the cause of action

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby

In re Sonus Networks

Holding that although res judicata is an affirmative defense, where the defendant raises the issue by a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff does not object to the procedure, the court may resolve the issue on such a motion

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”

Commissioner of the Dept. of Emp. Tr. v. Dugan

Reasoning that "[i]n some cases, even if there is a lack of total identity between the issues involved in two adjudications, the overlap may be so substantial that preclusion is plainly appropriate."

Commercial Associates v. Tilcon Gammino, Inc.

Finding state statute does not abrogate court's discretion to determine whether and to what extent prejudgment interest is awarded