Factbites
 Where results make sense
About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us  

Topic: Collateral estoppel


Related Topics

In the News (Tue 23 Apr 19)

  
  DBRES
Collateral estoppel prevents the court from addressing employer's contention regarding the deputy commissioner's "excuse" under Section 14(e), as the issue was resolved in a prior proceeding and the resolution was necessary to the imposition and affirmance of statutory penalties.
Therefore, she is not barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata from having her claim heard on the merits, despite the fact that the compensability of the same death is at issue.
This is in contravention of the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
www.dol.gov /brb/lsdesk/dbres.htm   (3041 words)

  
 Harter v. Iowa Grain Company - May 20, 1999
In addition, this concern dovetails with the very purpose of the collateral estoppel doctrine, which is intended to protect parties from the expense and vexation of defending multiple lawsuits as well as to conserve judicial resources and to foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.
Collateral estoppel also requires that the party against whom the earlier decision is being asserted must have had a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate the disputed issues in the earlier case.
Collateral estoppel merely requires that the second action involve a single party to the first case against whom the estoppel is asserted.
www.cftc.gov /ogc/oporders99/ogcharter052099.htm   (3156 words)

  
  Flores v. Barretto (Dissenting Opinion by C.J. Moon, in which J. Levinson joins)
[c]ollateral estoppel is an aspect of res judicata which precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue which was previously determined in a prior suit on a different claim between the same parties or their privies.
Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself [or herself] raised and litigated the fact or issue.
Thus, for purposes of collateral estoppel, the requirement of a final judgment ensures that the decision to be given preclusive effect is not tentative or subject to change.
www.hawaii.gov /jud/23071dis.htm   (2204 words)

  
  Collateral estoppel   (Site not responding. Last check: )
Collateral estoppel, also sometimes known as issue preclusion, is a common law doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue.
Collateral estoppel is closely related to the concept of claim preclusion, which prevents parties relitigating the same cause of action after it has been decided by a judge or jury.
Collateral estoppel does not prevent an appeal of the decision to a higher court, or a party from asking the judge for reargument or a revised decision.
www.serebella.com /encyclopedia/article-Collateral_estoppel.html   (335 words)

  
 Flores v. Barretto (Dissenting Opinion by C.J. Moon, in which J. Levinson joins)
[c]ollateral estoppel is an aspect of res judicata which precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue which was previously determined in a prior suit on a different claim between the same parties or their privies.
Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself [or herself] raised and litigated the fact or issue.
Thus, for purposes of collateral estoppel, the requirement of a final judgment ensures that the decision to be given preclusive effect is not tentative or subject to change.
www.state.hi.us /jud/23071dis.htm   (2204 words)

  
 "Collateral Estoppel" Defined
Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law ncessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.
The collateral estoppel bar is inapplicable when the claimant did not have a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' the issue decided by the other court.
Ordinarily, collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the party seeking to use it, or else it is waived.
www.lectlaw.com /def/c171.htm   (1159 words)

  
 Collateral estoppel (Gentile vs. Bauder)
The DCA relied on collateral estoppel, citing its earlier ruling in the related criminal case that the officer's affidavit in support of a search warrant was legally insufficient to justify the search.
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL The first issue we address is whether the district court erred in attaching preclusive effect to its prior decision in Bauder I regarding the affidavit petitioner gave in support of the search warrant.
Petitioner argues that collaterally estopping her from raising a qualified immunity defense based on an action to which she was not a party violates her due process rights.
www.hsmv.state.fl.us /CASES/Gentile.html   (1741 words)

  
 Collateral Estoppel Law & Legal Definition
Collateral estoppel is the legal doctrine that holds that the determination of the facts litigated between the parties to a proceeding are biniding and conclusive on those parties in any future litigation.
Non-mutual, offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff seeks to foreclose a defendant from relitigating an issue that the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully in another action against a different party.
The U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned that non-mutual, offensive collateral estoppel should not be applied where: (1) a plaintiff in the second action could have easily joined in the earlier suit; or (2) where the application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to a defendant.
www.uslegalforms.com /legaldefinitions/c/collateral-estoppel.php   (384 words)

  
 Dorrance v. Lee
Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself raised and litigated the fact or issue.
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, on the other hand, applies to a subsequent suit between the parties or their privies on a different cause of action and prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue that was actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action.
As previously indicated, collateral estoppel requires only that the issue decided in the prior adjudication be identical to the one presented in the present action; the position of a party, as either plaintiff or defendant, in the prior action is irrelevant.
www.hawaii.gov /jud/21882.htm   (3495 words)

  
 Collateral estoppel   (Site not responding. Last check: )
Collateral estoppel, also sometimes known as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue.
Collateral estoppel does not prevent an appeal of a decision, or a party from asking the judge for reargument or a revised decision.
Collateral estoppel is an efficiency rule that is meant to save judicial resources by avoiding the relitigation of issues of fact that have already been actually litigated.
www.factsandlinks.com /common/wiki.php?in=en&term=Collateral_estoppel   (1383 words)

  
 02-602
The trial court found that collateral estoppel did not apply, because the previous determination in federal court was not essential to the judgment in that case.
The elements of collateral estoppel are: (1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated; (3) it must have been determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the judgment.
Ordinarily, collateral estoppel is relied upon by a defendant to preclude a plaintiff from relitigating an issue that has previously been decided adversely to the plaintiff.
courts.state.ar.us /opinions/2003a/20030417/02-602.html   (4139 words)

  
 Dorrance v. Lee
Collateral estoppel also precludes relitigation of facts or issues previously determined when it is raised defensively by one not a party in a prior suit against one who was a party in that suit and who himself raised and litigated the fact or issue.
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, on the other hand, applies to a subsequent suit between the parties or their privies on a different cause of action and prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue that was actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action.
As previously indicated, collateral estoppel requires only that the issue decided in the prior adjudication be identical to the one presented in the present action; the position of a party, as either plaintiff or defendant, in the prior action is irrelevant.
www.state.hi.us /jud/21882.htm   (3495 words)

  
 ADP | Tax & Financial Services | Newsletters
In basic terms, the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel says an issue that was decided in a prior proceeding cannot be argued again in another proceeding.
Collateral estoppel raises concerns regarding unemployment insurance (UI) appellate processes, because it could be interpreted to mean that facts, testimony and decisions from unemployment hearings might be binding in a subsequent court case.
A few states do not have laws that specifically address collateral estoppel; therefore, facts, conclusions and decisions from a UI case might be binding in a subsequent proceeding.
www.adp.com /taxfin/newsletter/uiforum2/current/index.html   (398 words)

  
 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S (Urantia Foundation) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ..
The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to bar Maaherra's affirmative trademark defenses or counterclaim because none of these issues was "actually decided" in the Arizona case after a full and fair opportunity for litigation.
In Avondale, a party attempted to assert collateral estoppel on the basis of a partial summary judgment order issued in a prior case that subsequently was resolved by the entry of a final judgment by consent.
Natural Organics, Inc., 223 USPQ 27, 28-29 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (motion for summary judgment on collateral estoppel, based on a determination of likelihood of confusion in a prior case, denied because such decision may be "totally irrelevant" with respect to new market conditions).
www.freeurantia.org /opp.htm   (5439 words)

  
 PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: Nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel in Vioxx cases?
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is the principle that a party that has lost an issue at trial doesn't get to relitigate the same issue at a future trial.
Offensive collateral estoppel permits a plaintiff to use the doctrine against a defendant.
Except that Merck can defend against any such motion for collateral estoppel by noting that there are conflicting jury verdicts out there, because Merck won every single issue (including a consumer fraud claim) in the Humeston New Jersey case.
www.pointoflaw.com /archives/002317.php   (310 words)

  
 Collateral Estoppel in Criminal Cases
Collateral estoppel means that, in a second action on a different cause of action, the judgment on the merits in the first lawsuit precludes re-litigation of issues in the second lawsuit.
Initially, collateral estoppel was held to apply only in those cases in which the parties to both proceedings were the same or in privity with a party in the prior proceedings.
The test to determine whether collateral estoppel applies, said the Court, is whether (1) the issue in this case is “identical to the issue decided in the prior” proceeding; (2) there was “a judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; (3).
www.mobar.org /e4cace40-4d6b-4acd-a237-127ee910688c.aspx   (4496 words)

  
 Sister-State Decision May Have Collateral-Estoppel Effect
To be sure, collateral estoppel generally involves the effect of a judgment in the courts of the state where it was rendered.
Second, with respect to collateral estoppel, the court concluded that the Arizona opinion "is of no use to ACIC." The court reasoned that the "same issue" element was lacking because the Arizona court reached its decision under Arizona law, which was inconsistent with California law.
Because collateral estoppel is a judge-made, equitable doctrine, a court need not apply it — even if the elements are met — if the underlying policies are not served.
www.reedsmith.com /our_people/attorney_search.cfm?WidCall1=CustomWidgets.content_view_printfriendly&cit_id=3285   (1443 words)

  
 97-4062 -- U.S. v. Gallardo-Mendez -- 07/28/1998
The court concluded the doctrine of collateral estoppel could be applied against the prisoner plaintiff in a subsequent civil action against state agents as to facts necessarily admitted by his plea of guilty to the related criminal charge.
The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, determining the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply where the government failed to prove the determinative questions were directly put in issue and determined by the plea of guilty.
There is a clear split among our sister circuits that have ruled on the question of whether the government may use the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preclude a criminal defendant from raising an issue adjudicated in a prior criminal proceeding.
www.kscourts.org /ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4062.htm   (3060 words)

  
 'THE INFORMANT' MEETS 'THE ESTOPPEL' IN A BATTLE OVER A MILLION STOCK SHARES   (Site not responding. Last check: )
Another related concept is "that branch of equitable estoppel known as 'quasi- estoppel' or 'estoppel by benefit.' Under a quasi-estoppel theory, a party who accepts a transaction or instrument and then accepts benefits under it may be estopped to take a later position inconsistent with the prior acceptance of that same transaction or instrument.
Quasi-estoppel is similar to equitable estoppel in that it may not be invoked by a stranger to the transaction where the prior position was asserted.
Both judicial estoppel and the 'mend the hold' rule preclude the assertion of inconsistent factual positions before a tribunal, and both serve to preserve judicial resources, protect judicial integrity and boost public confidence in the fairness of the judicial system.
www.felahfd.com /HFDLaw/notebook/399.htm   (1978 words)

  
 Res Judicata @ lawschoolhelp.com
Collateral estoppel arises from a different cause of action and prevents parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues in second suit that were fully litigated in the first suit.
Collateral estoppel is not a defense against a litigant who was not a party to the action and judgment claimed to have created an estoppel.
The bank pleaded collateral estoppel, arguing that Bernhard had already adjudicated the right to the funds in the probate proceeding, had lost, and should be precluded from relitigating the issue against the bank.
www.west.net /~smith/resjud.htm   (2075 words)

  
 Divorce Source: COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL - BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
Defensive collateral estoppel is used by a defendant to keep a plaintiff from asserting a claim that the plaintiff previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the court added.
Collateral estoppel does not reach issues which might have been litigated, but only those which were necessarily and unambiguously decided, the court continued.
The court also found that the fourth element of collateral estoppel was not satisfied in that the husband did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of the business relationship in the dissolution proceeding.
www.divorcesource.com /research/edj/postdecree/99apr45.shtml   (697 words)

  
 [No title]
Whether broker is precluded from invoking collateral estoppel to prevent landlord, in action against landlord to
collateral estoppel to prevent relitigation of the issue of whether a lease existed.
collateral estoppel effect because the judgment was infected by jury prejudice, is wholly without merit, no
www.icsc.org /srch/cases/0001292C.html   (582 words)

  
 Collateral Estoppel Explained as ISSUE preclusion
The federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata [claim preclusion] and collateral estoppel [issue preclusion].
Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 104 (1980) said that '[t]he federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel,' excepting only 'a federal writ of habeas corpus, the purpose of which is not to redress civil injury but to release the applicant from unlawful physical confinement.'
www.caught.net /prose/collat.htm   (1103 words)

  
 SSRN-Avoiding Duplicative Litigation of Similar Claims: The Superiority of Class Action vs. Collateral Estoppel vs. ...
Regarding collateral, I propose and examine a "two-way" regime that expands the prevailing rules by extending the benefits or detriments of final judgment in the first case to preclude both defendant and non-party plaintiffs from relitigating common questions in subsequent cases.
Finally, I reject the general objection to two-way collateral estoppel that it systematically vests defendant's with higher stakes than plaintiffs, and thus distorts the accuracy of adjudication, undermining the ability of civil liability to minimize the sum of sum of accident costs.
Two-way collateral estoppel exacerbates the asymmetry in defendant's favor - it does not create it - but that only strengthens the case for class action to equalize plaintiffs' litigation power with that of defendant's.
papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=354100   (687 words)

  
 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel (Urantia Foundation lawsuits)
The purpose of collateral estoppel is to prevent "the waste and burden of relitigating old issues." Tillman v.
Accordingly, collateral estoppel warrants the dismissal of Maaherra's affirmative defenses 2, 9, and 10 with prejudice, and Maaherra's counterclaim should be dismissed with prejudice to the extent that it relies on the allegations set forth in those affirmative defenses.
What should underscore the determination of "virtual representation" in each case is the underlying purpose of res judicata and collateral estoppel: to put an end to a litigation, and preserve consistency in judicial results.
www.freeurantia.org /webdoc9b.htm   (11276 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

Factbites
  About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us  
Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.