Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that what “could have been litigated” is determined “as of the date the first complaint is filed,” and discerning “no principled basis for distinguishing between a new fact and a newly discovered fact[.]”
• “A claim should be barred if with due diligence it could have been brought earlier.” (citation omitted)
• “[0]therwise, courts would get bogged down in determining whether an amendment was possible or practicable when the new claims arose.” (citation omitted)
• “The rule in this circuit, and others, is that ‘claim preclusion does not apply to claims that accrue after the filing of the operative complaint’ in the first suit.”
• “The reason for the rule that all claims that ‘could have been brought’ are barred under res judicata is so [a] party cannot by negligence or design withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).