Board of Supervisors v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the district court’s finding that claim preclusion barred the claim, in part, because the “employer-employee relationship satisfies the claim preclusion privity requirement”
• affirming the district court’s 8 finding that claim preclusion barred the claim, in part, because the “employer-employee 9 relationship satisfies the claim preclusion privity requirement”
• “An employer- 9 employee relationship satisfies the claim preclusion privity requirement.”
• “An employer-employee relationship satisfies the claim preclusion 18 privity requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).