Youngin's Auto Body v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• “Federal courts must accord District of Columbia court judgments the same preclusive effect those judgments would be given by District of Columbia courts.”
• “Federal courts must accord District of Columbia court judgments the same preclusive effect those judgments would be given by District of Columbia courts.”
• “[F]or the purposes of claim preclusion, the legal theory upon which the plaintiff relies is irrelevant; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same ‘common nucleus of facts’ as the [earlier litigation].”
• “Although the defense of res judicata is jurisdictional in character, it is an affirmative defense . . . and therefore is not a per se jurisdictional bar to court review as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).