Citation network
Taylor Vs. Sturgell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 2008
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2007 Taylor V. SturgellSearch
-
Richards v. JeffersonSearch
-
over the litigation in which that judgment was rendered. Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
F. 3d 965, vacated and remanded. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Taylor v. SturgellSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Taylor V. SturgellSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-371 Brent Taylor, Petitioner V. RobertSearch
-
Herrick v. GarveySearch
-
s argument, the District Court granted summary judgment to the FAA. Herrick v. GarveySearch
-
s decision in Tyus v. SchoemehlSearch
-
in their approaches to virtual representation. Taylor v. BlakeySearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Klugh v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
citing Perez v. VolvoSearch
-
Car Corp. , 247 F. 3d 303, 312 (CA1 2001), and Tice v. AmericanSearch
-
Inc. v. LockheedSearch
-
The federal common law of preclusion is, of course, subject to due process limitations. See Richards v. JeffersonSearch
-
Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
hereinafter Shapiro). See also California v. TexasSearch
-
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23), and suits brought by trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries, see Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. GaudetSearch
-
over the litigation in which that judgment was rendered. Montana , 440 U. S., at 154. See also Schnell v. PeterSearch
-
as the designated representative of a person who was a party to the prior adjudication. See Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. SchendelSearch
-
so that it is no broader than the recognized exception for adequate representation. See, e.g., Becherer v. MerrillSearch
-
core holding in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. AlabamaSearch
-
up three decisions they view as supportive of the approach they espouse. Fairchild quotes our statement in Coryell v. PhippsSearch
-
Fairchild also cites Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
were parties to a judgment. See Blonder-Tongue , 402 U. S., at 334. The FAA relies on United States v. DesSearch
-
Bittinger v. TecumsehSearch
-
interest. E.g. , National Archives and Records Admin. v. FavishSearch
-
U. S., at 350. Ordinarily, it is incumbent on the defendant to plead and prove such a defense, see Jones v. BockSearch
-
s suit. See Herrick v. GarveySearch
-
s. See Kourtis v. CameronSearch
-
the existence of a legal relationship between the nonparty to be bound and the putative representative. See Pollard v. CockrellSearch
-
Becherer v. MerrillSearch
-
EEOC v. PemcoSearch
-
The Seventh Circuit, in contrast, has rejected the doctrine of virtual representation altogether. See Perry v. GlobeSearch
-
See Migra v. WarrenSearch
-
See, e.g., Richards v. JeffersonSearch
-
not in the context of res judicata, but as used in a statute governing shipowner liability. See Coryell v. PhippsSearch
-
s conduct of the suit. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. That point is debatable. See United States v. DesSearch
-
See also Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. SchendelSearch
-
some representative suits, e.g. , class actions seeking monetary relief. See 517 U. S., at 801 (citing Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 32 , 40 (1940), Eisen v. CarlisleSearch
-
Jacquelin , 417 U. S. 156 , 177 (1974), and Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Court. Taylor v. SturgellSearch
-
Brent Taylor, Petitioner V. RobertSearch
-
the FAA. Herrick v. GarveySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial