be subject, the Owners would then have no cause for complaint. The taking here, however, was accomplished through the implementation of an announced policy to extend public ownership of the shore. The protection afforded by the doctrine of res judicata includes the land court’s identification and use of the seaweed line as the monument fixing the location of high water mark for the seaward boundary of Lot 3. “[A] right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue, and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies . .” Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 49, 18 S.Ct. 18, 27, 42 L.Ed. 355 (1897). Compare Oklahoma v. Texas, 256 U.S. 70, 89, 41 S.Ct. 420, 65 L.Ed. 831 (1920), (<HOLDING>) Res judicata applies even if a court
holding that determination of the oklahoma and texas common boundary in a prior suit was conclusive in future litigation holding that oklahoma law firms receipt and deposit of texas clients payments drawn on a texas bank were fortuitous and thus insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction against firm in texas state court holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding no jurisdiction over nonresident customer where contract was solicited negotiated and consummated in oklahoma for billboards to be built in texas and erected in oklahoma payments were made to texas and defendant would not earn a profit from texas and had no other contact with texas