Gatewood v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding claim preclusion applied—despite the 23 24 1 plaintiff citing evidence in a subsequent suit unavailable in the prior suit because the evidence 2 was merely an example to support the claims already raised in the first case
• asking “whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action”
• setting out four factors for determining whether there 17 is an “identity of claims” for res judicata
• applying res judicata after finding that plaintiff was required to bring its statutory claims in its first lawsuit, because the claims were based on the same government conduct
• asking “whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions”
• listing the four factors considered in determining whether the “identity of the claims” is sufficient such that res judicata applies, the most important factor being “whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).