Arnevik v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents

How courts have described this case

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

• holding an indemnification claim based on breach of contract was barred by claim preclusion due to the dismissal of a prior indemnification claim based on respondeat superior
• listing second element as “the claim in the second suit could have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the prior case”
• listing second element as “the claim in the second suit could have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the prior case”
• “The absence of any one of these elements is fatal to a defense of claim preclusion.”
• “[I]t was Arnevik’s duty to explore and discover all of her possible causes of action and to bring them at the same time she brought her first claim.”
• “[O]nce [the employee] started down the path in the first action seeking indemnification from [her employer], she was required to bring all theories of recovery at that time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).