Young v. Crescent Coffee, Inc.

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 mere fact that the damages had not yet been assessed should not deprive a ruling on liability of preclusive effect
• “The [earlier] litigation was prosecuted by Glidden with the utmost vigor, up to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
• “[W]here litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.”
• “[W]here litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.”
• “[W]here litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.”
• “[W]here litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).