Mars Incorporated v. Nippon Conlux Kabushiki-Kaisha, Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• applying claim preclusion based in part upon “[t]he relationship between [the parent] and its wholly-owned subsidiary with respect to the importation and sales of the [product at issue]”
• “With respect to the machines at issue in this case, [the subsidiary] served as the intermediary between [the parent] and the ultimate purchasers.”
• absent a legally distinct basis for recovery against corporate parent, final judgment against wholly owned subsidiary results in claim preclusion
• “It is well settled ... that claim preclusion may be invoked by and against those in privity with parties.”
• “The principles of claim preclusion, however, are not limited to cases involving identical parties. It is well settled, for example, that claim preclusion may be invoked by and against those in privity with parties.”
• “[A] plaintiff who chooses to bring two separate actions against two tortfeasors who are jointly responsible for the same injury runs the risk that the court will find the parties sufficiently related that the second action is barred by claim preclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).