Curtis v. Lofy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defense was “personal” to one defendant and did not address the merits of the plaintiff’s case against the other defendant, and therefore did not have a res judicata effect against that other defendant
• holding that defense was “personal” to one defendant and did not address the merits of the plaintiff’s case against the other defendant, and therefore did not have a res judicata effect against that other defendant
• stating that “[b]efore a trial court can enter a Rule 304(a) finding, the court must have entered an otherwise final order” and that a “Rule 304(a) finding does not make an otherwise nonfinal order final and appealable”
• taking judicial notice of entire record from prior adjudication to evaluate res judicata argument
• applying de novo review to whether a claim is barred by res judicata
• Rule 304(a) language did not make partial summary judgment order final where additional counts remained and plaintiff granted leave to amend complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).