© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
- Language
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
collateral estoppel doctrine
8.950 documents for collateral estoppel doctrine
-
Doctrine of collateral estoppel; duty to intervene/concealment; Civ.R. 56/summary judgment.
-
Attorneys in Missouri have used a legal doctrine rarely seen in state court to obtain a $35.25 million jury verdict in a truck fatality case. The doctrine - offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel - allowed lead plaintiffs' counsel Kenneth McClain and co-plaintiffs' counsel Danny Thomas of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain in Independence, Mo., to limit the trial to a determination of damages.
-
Because the Ohio Industrial Commission awarded a total loss of use of the claimant's arm, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, an award of statutory permanent total disability under former R.C. 4123.58(C) was compelled. Therefore, the commission's objections to the magistrate's decision were overruled and the requested writ of mandamus was granted.
-
In a unique case where the plaintiff claimed that the drug fluoxetine - commonly known as Prozac - was largely responsible for him stabbing his wife to death, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York concluded the plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the drug manufacturer was precluded by the guilty murder verdict and the proceedings from his prior criminal trial. Specifically, Judge David G. Larimer in Bernard J. Sorrentino v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. found that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to the plaintiff's case since the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims during his criminal trial regarding the defendant's alleged failure to properly disclose the side effects of fluoxetine.
-
Trial court followed the mandate of a federal district court, in habeas corpus action, by successor of deceased trial judge in bench trial rendering a verdict from the audiovisual record of the original trial. In view of state court of appeals, this was not a proper procedure under Ohio law. Nevertheless, the doctrine of collateral estoppel compelled the trial court to follow that procedure. The State was the real party in interest in both the federal and the state proceedings, and the federal courts holding that a verdict could be rendered in this manner was essential to its judgment that defendants right to be free from double jeopardy could be protected in this manner. Defendant did not own the legal fees he was alleged to have stolen from his law firm. Therefore, his convictio...
-
In Tennessee, the party attempting to prevent relitigation of an issue in a subsequent lawsuit through the use of collateral estoppel must prove that: (1) the issue was litigated and determined in a prior suit (2) between the same parties, and (3) the determination of the issue was necessary to the prior final and valid judgment.9 In the past few decades, courts have further developed this longstanding doctrine of collateral estoppel.10 While the doctrine of collateral estoppel originated in civil cases, serving the goals of judicial efficiency, consistency of judgments, and finality,11 courts have also applied it in criminal cases.12 The doctrine of collateral estoppel in the criminal context, however, is more complicated because of the constitutional rights afforded the defendant un...
-
CIVIL - Trial court's decision not to grant Appellant's request for Appellee to have only supervised visitation with their minor children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and issue not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
-
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... and Credit: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. The preclusion doctrines of res judicata 186 and...
-
An actual conflict between Ohio law and the law of another jurisdiction must exist before a choice-of-law analysis is undertaken — The doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be invoked when there is no final order.
