Hatch v. Trail King Industries, 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 a “party’s recourse is to appeal, not to start a new action”
• explaining that a res judicata analysis would be the same under federal or Massachusetts law because “Massachusetts courts apply res judicata in a thoroughly conventional way” and they follow the Restatement (Second
• “It is axiomatic that claim preclusion doctrine requires a party to live with its strategic choices” (cleaned up)
• “It is ax- iomatic that claim preclusion doctrine requires a party to live with its strategic choices.”
• “It is axiomatic that claim preclusion doctrine [and claim splitting] requires a party to live with its strategic choices” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “We apply ‘the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits’ to successive diversity actions, unless ‘the state law is incompatible with federal interests.’” (quoting Semtek Int’l, Inc., 531 U.S. 497, 508-09 (2001))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).