Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Tenneco Oil Co. v. Kern Oil & Refining Co.

488 U.S. 948

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1988-11-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding section 1821 applicable to fee-shifting provision of Equal Pay Act because "the broad language in Crawford Fitting does not permit a distinction based upon whether or not the award is made under a fee-shifting statute"
  • in context of liquidated damages award arising under Equal Pay Act, court rejects discredited argument that market forces led defendant-employer to reasonable belief that discriminatory pay practices were in conformity with law
  • new claims by plaintiff related back to original complaint filed against same defendant because amended claim arose out of original transaction or occurrence
  • “[W]e have allowed a party to raise res judicata after the initial pleadings by construing the attempt as a motion to file a supplemental answer.... [W]e have always required that [res judicata] be raised before trial.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Tenneco Oil Co. v. Kern Oil & Refining Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
63 opinions

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of-this petition.