Legal Opinion
Maldonado v. Flynn
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided May 29, 1980PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.
I
Defendant Zapata Corporation (“Zapata”), asserting the doctrine of res judicata (“the matter is settled by a judgment”), moved to dismiss this action, claiming that a final judgment of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“U. S. District Court”) dismissing a companion action, Maldonado v. Flynn, 485 F.Supp. 274 (1980) is binding as to all issues pending in this Court, even though the U. S. District Court did not consider the merits of the issues pending in this Court. Zapata urges that plaintiff (“Maldonado”) should have presented the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. MorrinSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Woods Exploration & Producing Company, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Coca Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1934
- Maldonado v. FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Rennie v. Freeway TransportOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colorado, Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2009
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,484 John F. Maher v. Zapata Corporation v. William Maldonado, Objector-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.