Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. Paramount Communications, Inc.

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 state court judgment – which had not determined the issue of damages– was nevertheless “final” for purposes of preclusion because the parties had fully litigated the issue in question before the New York trial court and intermediate appellate court
• finding that enumeration of certain items in an 1 The Court may consider the Agreement because it is explicitly referenced in the third-party complaint and integral to count I. See Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010
• addressing an issue of preclusion “[a]s a threshold matter”
• interpreting the same language, but applying New York law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).