Thomas E. England v. Automatic Canteen Company of America
Thomas E. ENGLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTOMATIC CANTEEN COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
' In 1946 appellant England joined with thirteen other plaintiffs in filing two suits against appellee, referred to herein as Automatic Canteen, in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, at Chicago, seeking treble damages under the anti-trust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2, 4 and 15. After these suits had been dismissed as to the other thirteen plaintiffs, an order was entered by the Court in Chicago on April 4, 1949, dismissing England’s suits “with prejudice.”
On March 29, 1949, six days before the dismissal of his suits in Chicago, England filed his complaint in the present case seeking to recover treble damages against Automatic Canteen under the anti-trust laws.
Under date of February 11, 1964, the district court sustained the motion of Automatic Canteen for summary judgment on the ground that the dismissal with prejudice of England’s Chicago cases is res judicata as to all issues between the parties which were raised or might have been litigated in those cases. England has appealed from the summary judgment order.
An examination of the court files shows that the same matters were set forth in the complaints in the Chicago case and the present case; and that all matters complained of in the present case were alleged to have occurred at a time prior to the dismissal of the Chicago cases in 1949, *989 no post 1949 events being charged in the pleadings in the present case.
A dismissal of a suit with prejudice bars a subsequent action seeking the same relief. Olsen v. Muskegon Piston Ring Co., 117 F.2d 163 (C.A. 6). We agree with the district court that the dismissal of the Chicago cases with prejudice bars the present case under the doctrine of res judicata. Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 , 75 S. Ct. 865 , 99 L.Ed. 1122 ; Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 281 U.S. 470 , 50 S.Ct. 374 , 74 L.Ed. 972 ; Esquire, Inc. v. Varga Enterprises, Inc., 185 F.2d 14 (C.A. 7); Cleveland v. Higgins, 148 F.2d 722 (C.A. 2), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 722 , 66 S.Ct. 27 , 90 L.Ed. 428 .
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- John A. Porter, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Master Asset Securitization Trust 2003-10, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Assignee of Chase Home Finance LLC
- FieldTurf, Inc. v. Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc.
- Catz v. Chalker
- Steve Isaac v. William Schwartz
- Land Associates v. Metropolitan Airport Authority
- In re KDI Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.