noting that courts “look beyond the nominal parties, and treat all those whose interests are involved in the litigation and who conduct and control the action or defense as real parties . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- noting that courts “look beyond the nominal parties, and treat all those whose interests are involved in the litigation and who conduct and control the action or defense as real parties . . . .”
- allowing a new defendant to affirmatively raise the defense of res judicata to bar a plaintiff from reasserting issues the plaintiff had previously litigated against another defendant
- bringing common law trademark infringement action involving the same facts, after earlier statutory trademark infringement case was decided
- applying Noerr-Pennington to state antitrust claims, but holding it did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I am gratified that we have made clear that the restrictive doctrine of mutuality should no longer be applied to bar those who were not parties, or in privity, to the earlier litigation from asserting the defens *160 es of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Cf. Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335 , 339 n. 3 (S.D.1980); Id. at 339 (Wollman, J., dissenting).