Sandra L. PLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL-RUNDLE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “discussion of related but distinct cause of action in briefs [did not] amount[] to the actual assertion of that claim” for res judicata purposes
• noting that for collateral estoppel to apply, the issue must have been actually litigated and determined in the prior proceeding
• finding that plaintiff’s references on brief in the first case to after-accrued claims “were insufficient to put [those] claims . . . before the district court”
• holding in the context of res judicata, a court “must examine the factual issues that must be resolved in the second suit and compare them with the issues explored in the first case.”
• looking to the trial record to determine if an issue was actually litigated
• Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d) makes a supplemental pleading optional and “the doctrine of res judicata does not punish a plaintiff for exercising the option not to supplement the pleadings with an after-acquired claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).