Chada v. Chada

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where the appellant “previously had a full and fair opportunity to pursue the claims he now raises, and although he may have failed to do so, the doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of (Footnote Continued
• stating that the doctrine of res judicata “subsumes” the modern doctrine of collateral estoppel
• stating “parties are entitled to rely on the finality of the litigation they both expressed their desire to achieve.”
• applying res judicata to bar subsequent action in equity, requesting that the court declare a constructive trust on certain property
• stating “parties are entitled to rely on the finality of the litigation they both expressed their desire to achieve.”
• describing res judicata as “claim preclusion,” and collateral estoppel as “issue preclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).