Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 12/2/2008

Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc.

Citations

  • 548 F.3d 191
  • 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 775
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24461
  • 2008 WL 5061808

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that claim preclusion bars claims that “were or could have been raised” in a prior action (emphasis added)
  • applying New York res judicata law to New York state court judgments
  • “[W]hen de- termining the effect of a state court judgment, federal courts . . . are required to apply the preclusion law of the rendering state.”
  • “Because Giannone’s State Action sought injunctive relief as well as a declaratory judgment, he may not avail himself of the ‘declaratory judgment exception’ to the doctrine of res judicata.”
  • “Under New York law, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” (internal citation omitted)
  • “When ‘determin[ing] the effect of a state court judgment, federal courts . . . are required to apply the preclusion law of the rendering state.’” (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int’l, 231 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 2000)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cabranes, Hall, Gleeson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.