Richard Drake v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that parties are precluded from litigating claims that “were or could have been raised in that action.”
• holding that res judicata was unavailable where “many of the central events underlying” the second action had “not even taken place” when the petitioner instigated the first action
• holding that the “FAA’s action in this case was ... analogous to an exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion,’ ” and noting that “when prosecutorial discretion is at issue, the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law”
• holding that claim preclusion did not apply where the second case involved events that occurred after the first case was initiated, and therefore the issues could have been raised in the first case
• holding that claim preclusion did not apply where the second case involved events that occurred after the first case was initiated, and therefore the issues could have been raised in the first case
• holding that res judicata did not bar a successive lawsuit against an agency’s “subsequent determination” and noting that key events “had not even taken place at the time” when the plaintiff instigated the initial lawsuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).