In re the Marriage of: Milana Staletovich Riggs v. Leon O. Riggs (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim preclusion did not bar claims that arose after first lawsuit was commenced
• holding that “[b]ecause the decision to be given preclusive effect was 19 rendered by a federal court exercising federal-question jurisdiction, federal 20 common law determines whether preclusion applies.”
• holding that de novo review applies to a court’s application of claim 28 preclusion
• stating that an element of claim preclusion is that the prior action “involved identical parties or privies” (quotation omitted)
• explaining that claim preclusion does not bar claims that accrue after the filing of the operative complaint
• holding that, under the “separate- accrual rule” applicable under the Copyright Act, “any sales of allegedly infringing Microsoft products after April 25, 2013 [the date of filing of the prior suit], gave rise to a cause of action (the ‘post-filing copyright infringement claims’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).