Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield

How courts have described this case

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

• finding a party who successfully sued for declaratory and injunctive relief could not bring a second action for damages because any claim for damages merged into the first judgment and is precluded
• finding a party can assert a claim for damages even though the precise nature of and extent of an injury may be unknown, and thereby suggesting that a final municipal action — such as formal condemnation proceedings — is not a requirement of ripeness in a tort cause of action
• “Claim preclusion ‘prevents reassertion of the same claim even though additional or dif ferent evidence or legal theories might be advanced to support it.’ ” (citation omitted)
• village was precluded from bringing a second action for damages after receiving declaratory and injunctive relief in first action
• “To determine whether [a plaintiff] asserts the same claims in both cases, a court looks to the factual bases for the claims, not the legal theories.”
• “To determine whether a claim is barred by a former judgment, the question is whether the claim arises out of the same act, contract, or transaction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).