Giannone v. York Tape & Label, Inc.

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).