United States v. Liquidators of European Federal Credit Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was an identity of claims where there 15 were “no real differences (if there are any differences at all) between the factual predicates for the 16 two [] actions”
• concluding that there was an identity of claims where there were “no real 25 differences (if there are any differences at all) between the factual predicates for the two [] 26 actions”
• holding that judicial estoppel barred the government from arguing that defendant could not raise legal claims challenging forfeitability in ancillary proceedings, after earlier arguing that defendant could raise their arguments during ancillary proceedings
• noting that whether claims share the same transactional nucleus of facts is the most important criterion in determining identity of claims
• identifying the “true inquiry” as whether the claims arise from the same transactional nucleus of fact, not whether the unasserted claims would have succeeded if brought in the first forum
• common nucleus of facts between civil and criminal forfeiture actions because both arose from “Defendant’s criminal conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).