Nicholas v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “res judicata bars subsequent litiga- tion between the same parties and those in privity with them involving the same cause of action”
• holding that because the district court’s ruling and intention were made clear in its earlier memorandum and order, the omission of the word “not” from the original judgment was a clerical mistake and thus the entry of the amended judgment did not restart the time for filing an appeal
• rejecting argument that “law of case” doctrine prevents court from later examining basis for federal jurisdiction
• stating that the law of the case doctrine, which 14 posits that a court’s prior decision upon a rule of law generally should “govern the same issues in 15 subsequent stages in the same case,” is at its least binding in the context of interlocutory orders
• “Res 2 judicata does not speak to direct attacks in the same case, but rather has application in subsequent 3 actions.”
• “Res judicata does not speak to direct attacks in the same case, but rather has application [only] in subsequent actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).