accord Moore v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 376 Md. 558, 831 A.2d 12, 16-17 (2003). The question is “whether the allegations in a new suit, ‘if proven to be true, would negate, contradict, and in that sense nullify an essential foundation for the earlier ... judgment.’ ” Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 282-83 (quoting Green, 828 A.2d at 830). This test is narrower than the transaction test. See Moore, 831 A.2d at 16 (quoting Restatement § 22(2)(B) cmt. F). Generally, the subsequent action will only be precluded if “the prior action had eventuated in a judgment for plaintiff since only in such a case would there be the threat of nullification of the judgment or impairment of rights[.]” Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 282 (quoting Restatement § 22(2)(B) cmt. F); see also Moore, 831 A.2d at 17 (<HOLDING>). Examples of subsequent judgments “nullifying”
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that a lawsuit against a corporation that purchased assets from a bankrupt is not a claim against the debtor holding that debtor was not prevented from raising a claim based facts that had served as a successful defense against creditors previous suit to recover the debt holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor