Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Virginia, Florida, and Alabama kept their own preclusion rules rather than adopting Parklane’s federal rule, as the state-law entries below explain.
4,227 later cases cite Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore; 87 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Criticized
-
The court criticized Parklane's suggestion that defensive estoppel encourages property plaintiffs to join all potential challengers, reasoning that challengers cannot be sued before violating the property right.
Shaid v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department · filed
Contrary to the Parklane Hosiery Co. v Shore (supra) dictum, however, this efficiency cannot encourage plaintiff in a property action to join all potential challengers to his property right in one action for the simple reason that they cannot be made defendants until they have violated his purported right.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace