See De Nardo v. State, 740 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1987), (citing as persuasive Hixon v. Morse, 120 Ariz 356, 586 P.2d 201 (Ariz. App. 1978)).

Reasoning by disanalogy, the First Circuit distinguished a case illustrating an exception to preclusion in its opinion in Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade, 773 F.2d 1 (CA 1 1985). The court in Manego described its prior decision in Landrigan v. City of Warwick, 628 F.2d 736 (CA 1 1980) "where we held that a law suit charging the police with covering-up an alleged use of excesiive force was not precluded by a prior lawsuit based on the actual use of excessive force. The plaintiff in Landrigan could have pursued both casues of action in the same lawsuit and it might have been very convenient to do so, since the alleged cover-up was intimately connected to the initial police misconduct. We found, however, that because the factual basis for the cover-up was distinct from the factual basis for the midsconduct, the plaintiff was not required to do so." In contrast, in the instant case of Manego, the plaintiff had alleged in a prior suit that the city's refusal of entertainment and liquor licenses to his propsoed disco amounted to illegal race discrimination, and in the second case he claimed that the denial of the licenses stemmed from an illegal restraint of trade. The court reasoned, "This is not a case like Landirgan where, although the events in question are closely connected in time and space, two relatively distinct sets of facts can be separated out as the base for separate legal wrongs." Id.