Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) States Unpublished Orders Shall Not Be Cited or Used As Precedent Except to Support a Claim of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or Law of the Case in Any Federal Court Within the Circuit.g. Bradford Merkl, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Axley Brynelson, Formerly Known As Brynelson, Herrick,bucaida, Dorschel & Armstrong, Bruce A. Schultzand Archie E. Simonson, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 132 F.3d 36
Submitted Nov. 21, 1997.*Decided Dec. 10, 1997
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 94 C 615; John C. Shabaz, Chief Judge.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and PELL and KANE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Dissatisfied with the settlement of a state court lawsuit that his lawyer negotiated for him, Bradford Merkl sued a bevy of attorneys involved in the case in federal district court, and lost. Unsuccessful on appeal, Merkl v. Hardy, No. 94-2456 (7th Cir. April 14, 1993)(unpublished), Merkl tried again--same court, same defendants (with a few exceptions irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal), same result. This time the district court rebuffed Merkl's claims on the ground of res judicata.
Res judicata ensures the finality of decisions, barring further litigation between the same parties based on the same conduct. See Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003, 1004 (7th Cir.1995). Nothing that Merkl says in his arguments on appeal lead us to conclude that the district court was wrong. Moreover, Merkl had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his cause of action in his first federal court action, including an appeal to this court.
AFFIRMED.