Citation network
Richards Vs. Jefferson County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Richards v. JeffersonSearch
-
County - 517 U.S. 793 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Richards Et Al. V. JeffersonSearch
-
s acting finance director and the city itself, consolidated with a suit by three county taxpayers, see Bedingfield v. JeffersonSearch
-
of state-law res judicata principles may be inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, see Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. NewportSearch
-
and that the litigation was so conducted as to ensure the full and fair consideration of the common issue. Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. In Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
by three county taxpayers, and the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the tax in the resulting appeal. See Bedingfield v. JeffersonSearch
-
county argued that the federal claims as well as the state claims were barred by the adjudication in 1 Richards v. JeffersonSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Heiser v. WoodruffSearch
-
against the relitigation of common issues or the piecemeal resolution of disputes. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. NewportSearch
-
to the Alabama Supreme Court, that federal issue has been preserved for our review. See PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSearch
-
to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The opportunity to be heard is an essential requisite of due process of law in judicial proceedings. Windsor v. McVeighSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. SchmidtSearch
-
enforce a judgment against a party named in the proceedings without a hearing or an opportunity to be heard (Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
Coe v. ArmourSearch
-
in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.' Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
not a party, has his interests adequately represented by someone with the same interests who is a party. See Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
legal proceedings may terminate pre-existing rights if the scheme is otherwise consistent with due process. See NLRB v. BildiscoSearch
-
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSearch
-
which would conclusively resolve their legal rights. That failure is troubling because, as we explained in Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Schroeder v. CitySearch
-
concluded, were adequately represented in Bedingfield. 5 Our answer is informed by our decision in Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
in which the parties had stipulated that the owners of 95 percent had signed. Id., at 38 (referring to Burke v. KleimanSearch
-
the stipulation was untrue, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the second action was barred by res judicata. See Lee v. HansberrySearch
-
Chase Nat. Bank v. NorwalkSearch
-
Eisen v. CarlisleSearch
-
Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
cf. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSearch
-
to one another, Martin v. WilksSearch
-
provided representation sufficient to make up for the fact that petitioners neither participated in, see Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
all persons over whom they have jurisdiction when, as here, the underlying right is personal in nature. Cf. Lockport v. CitizensSearch
-
that status to entitle him to complain about an alleged misuse of public funds, see, e. g., Massachusetts v. MellonSearch
-
or about other public action that has only an indirect impact on his interests, e. g., Stromberg v. BoardSearch
-
of Ed. of Bratenahl, 64 Ohio St. 2d 98, 413 N. E. 2d 1184 (1980), Tallassee v. StateSearch
-
opportunity to contest a tax on federal constitutional grounds. See BrinkerhoffFaris Trust & Sav. Co. v. HillSearch
-
suit was of a kind that, under state law, could be brought only on behalf of the public at large. Cf. Corprew v. TallapoosaSearch
-
which we have held to be a protected property interest in its own right. See Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
U. S., at 812 (relying on Mullane v. CentralSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial