Harvey Specialty & Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equipment Inc., Anson Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) does not result in a final judgment that could support collateral estoppel or the relitigation exception under the Anti-Injunction Act
• holding that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) does not result in a final judgment that could support collateral estoppel or the relitigation exception under the Anti-Injunction Act
• explaining that plaintiffs have an absolute right to Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with an effect as if the suit had never been brought; further explaining that “the plaintiff is free to return to the dismissing court or other courts at a later date with the same claim”
• discussing Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir. 1997)
• “[A]n order that ‘is not a final judgment, and therefore is not appealable as a matter of right ... lacks sufficient finality to be entitled to preclusive effect’ under the relitigation exception.”
• “The effect of [a Rule 41(a)(1)] dismissal is to put the plaintiff in a legal position as if he had never brought the first suit.” (alteration in original) (quoting LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 1976))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).