About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through August 2019)

handle is hein.ali/resndjmts0039 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS 2D Generally N.M.App.2018. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. New Mexico's Attorney General sued manufacturers and marketers of a prescription antiplatelet drug, alleging that defendants falsely, deceptively, and unfairly labeled and promoted the drug in violation of New Mexico law. This court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Affirming on interlocutory appeal, this court held that plaintiff's claims were not barred by a federal district court's dismissal of a prior qui tam action against defendants filed on behalf of plaintiff based on similar facts, in which plaintiff had not intervened. In making its decision, the court noted that, while federal law determined the preclusive effect of a federal judgment under Restatement Second of Judgments § 87, the court could rely on both federal and New Mexico law, because they were not divergent on claim-preclusion doctrine and both found the Restatement Second of Judgments persuasive. State ex rel. Balderas v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 436 P.3d 724, 728. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Relation Between Law of Res Judicata and Law of Procedure Wyo.2019. Cit. in ftn. After criminal charges against motorist for driving while under the influence of alcohol were dismissed on the ground that a gap in the chain of custody of his blood samples rendered his blood-alcohol-content test results inadmissible, motorist appealed the state department of transportation's subsequent decision to suspend his license based on the same test results. The office of administrative hearings and the trial court affirmed. Affirming, this court held that the department was not barred by collateral estoppel from considering motorist's test results. In making its decision, the court noted that, under the Restatement Second of Judgments, collateral estoppel was also referred to as issue preclusion. Casiano v. State ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation, 434 P.3d 116, 120. CHAPTER 2. VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS § 1. Requisites of a Valid Judgment Cal.App.2018. Cit. in treatise cit. in disc. Unmarried American father filed a petition in California state court against mother, a resident of Belarus, seeking temporary emergency orders on child custody and visitation rights for his child. The trial court granted mother's motion to quash on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction, because a Belarusian court had already asserted jurisdiction over the dispute. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the Belarusian court did not have jurisdiction over the case, because it had failed to give father sufficient notice of the Belarusian proceedings. The court cited Restatement Second of Judgments § 1 in explaining that a court could not exercise power over a person if the person did not have adequate notice of the action. W.M. v. V.A., 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 170, 176. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most