Meder v. CCME CORP.
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtCallow, J.
This appeal presents as its sole issue whether the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis that the issues raised therein were res judicata, being issues which were or could have been previously decided.
Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395, 429 P.2d 207 (1967), contrasts and defines res judicata and collateral estoppel as follows:
Res judicata and collateral estoppel, kindred doctrines designed to prevent relitigation of already determined causes and curtail multiplicity of actions and harassment in the courts, are at times indistinguishable and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Bordeaux v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1967
- Owens v. KuroWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Rufener v. ScottWashington Supreme Court · 1955
- Luisi Truck Lines, Inc. v. Washington Utilities & Transportation CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1967
- Sayward v. ThayerWashington Supreme Court · 1894
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Eric Noel v. Brian C. Hall Sandra A. Hall, Fka Sandra Johnson, and Gabrielle S. Lennartz Herb Weisser Michelle A. MerchantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Rains v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Mellor v. ChamberlinWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Seattle-First National Bank v. KawachiWashington Supreme Court · 1978
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.