Leeds Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Metcalf

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the claims in the two suits were identical because the issue that was essential to the decision of the first court was the same issue that was essential to the decision of the second court
• barring a plaintiff from litigating a case because, in part, he had already been “given a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue” in a related case
• stating, “application is hereby made for a savings deposit account in the LEEDS FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, BALTIMORE, MD. in the names of the persons whose signatures ... shown on this card, as joint tenants, with the right of survivorship ....”
• plaintiffs precluded from relitigating the issue of an agent’s authority where that issue had been decided adversely to plaintiffs by judgment in prior litigation with different party (cases reviewed)
• “Nonmutual [issue preclusion] can be invoked offensively or defensively.” (Citation omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).