Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Holts Company

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,294 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Morris v. Jones
329 U.S. 545 (1947) Cited 266 times
Holding that a default judgment constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes
Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems
223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 79 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.
448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 20 times
Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 24 times
In Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 336,206 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit