collateral estoppel and res judicata

• State ex rel. Jefferson v. Wilkinson, (Ohio 2006)

Motion to dismiss granted based on collateral estoppel and res judicata.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Tuggle, (Ohio 2010)

Trial court's original sentencing entry was not a final judgment; appellant's appeal from the resentencing entry was proper; res judicata and collateral estoppel were inapplicable.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Summaries: May 17, 2012

Appellate Practice Inadequate Brief Unemployment Compensation Where the brief of a pro se appellant in an unemployment compensation case did not have a proper table of contents or table of cases and authorities cited and the points relied on section was wholly inadequate, the brief substantially failed to comply with Rule 84.04, so the appeal is dismissed. Appeal is dismissed.Rush v. Estes Express Lines (MLW No. 63669/Case No. ED97009 - 3 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Romines, J.) Appealed from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Jeannie Desir Mitchell for respondent) (Gina Rush, pro se). Civil Practice Collateral Estoppel Homeowners' Agreement Privity Where plaintiff, who had represented individuals in a dispute against a homeowners' association, broug...

• Missouri Lawyers Media
• May 24, 2012

• Favorable Termination After Freedom: Why Heck's Rule Should Reign, Within Reason

Introduction. II. Favorable Termination: An Overview Of History And Reach. A. Heck v. Humphrey. B. Spencer v. Kemna. C. The Circuit Split. 1. Circuits Endorsing the Heck Majority. 2. Circuits Endorsing the Spencer "Majority". III. The Availability Of § 1983 To Non-Habeas-Eligible Criminals. A. The History and Purpose of § 1983 Do Not Counsel Against Favorable Termination. 1. Concurrent Jurisdiction Over § 1983 Claims Illustrates State Court Adequacy. 2. Official Immunities in § 1983 Actions Illustrate State Court Adequacy. 3. The Aims of § 1983 Espoused by the Supreme Court. B. Strong State Sovereignty Interests Demand Respect for State Court Decisions. 1. Constitutional Federalism Acknowledges the Importance of State Sovereignty. 2. Rules and Doctrines Analogous to Favorable Termina...

... set of operative facts if such a collaterally-attacking § 1983 claim was cognizable. If the tru...185 . c. Full Faith and Credit: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. The preclusion doctrines ...

• Louisiana Law Review
• Nbr. 70-2, January 2010

• Yeager v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., (Ohio 2005)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review of administrative orders; R.C. 4112.06; arbitrary and capricious standard; res judicata and collateral estoppel.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata

In Liska v. Arns Law Firm (2004), the California Court of Appeal held that participation in California's mandatory fee arbitration (MFA) program did not preclude a client from bringing another court action against his attorneys for damages based on the same allegations, as long as he did not seek to recover as damages any portion of the attorneys' fees that the arbitrators awarded the attorneys in the MFA award.

• Dispute Resolution Journal
• Vol. 59 Nbr. 4, November 2004

• Saxe v. Dlusky, (Ohio 2010)

Trial court properly applied principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel to state claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and fraud, based on federal court’s findings arising out of federal securities claims. Trial court properly granted summary judgment on accounting claim as appellant cited to no authority which provided for an accounting and it was tied to other claims which were rejected. Appellee properly moved for summary judgment on conversion claim by identifying the specific basis of his request. Trial court properly granted summary judgment on breach of contract claim as there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining and evidence submitted by appellee was not contradictory or inadmissible and was based on personal knowledge.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Issue Preclusion in Complex Litigation

BACKGROUND The doctrine of prior adjudication describes the ways in which a prior judgment may have preclusive effect in a subsequent action.2 It consists of two interrelated concepts: (1) res judicata or claim preclusion; and (2) collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion.3 The principle underlying claim preclusion and issue preclusion is that once a litigant has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate its case, it will not get a second chance to do so. Origins of Claim Preclusion Claim preclusion is rooted in the common law doctrine of bar and merger.5 At common law, if a plaintiff sued and won, it would be awarded a judgment; under the doctrine of merger, the successful cause of action would become merged into the judgment.6 The plaintiff could not re-sue on the same cl...

• Review of Litigation, The
• Vol. 29 Nbr. 4, July 2010

• Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Farley Flynn and Glenn Butler, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Portland General Electric Company, Defendant-Appellee, 958 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1992)

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, D.W. NELSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges. MEMORANDUM* OVERVIEW Appellants F...

• Federal Circuits

• Clagg v. Clagg, (Ohio 2009)

Appellant appealed the finding that her petition for a civil protection order was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. On appeal, we found that the prior civil protection order in a different county was based on different facts and thus the Franklin County petition was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel and reversed the trial court judgment.

• Ohio Supreme Court