Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Collateral estoppel cases raise constitutional due process problems, particularly when it is applied to a party that did not participate in the original suit. Due process mandates that collateral estoppel not be applied to a party that has not litigated the issue in dispute, unless that party is in legal privity to a party that litigated it.
As an example, defendants might claim there is something about the method of bringing them to be judged that is unable to result in justice done to someone in their situation. They might claim the process is incompatible with the goals of the justice system. In the United States, procedural defenses include: collateral estoppel
Case history; Prior: Sunnen v. Commissioner, 161 F.2d 171 (8th Cir. 1947): Holding; The general rule of res judicata applies to tax proceedings involving the same claim and the same tax year, while the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is a narrower version of the res judicata rule, applies to tax proceedings involving similar or unlike claims and different tax years.
Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [ 3 ] Issue preclusion means that a party in a previous proceeding cannot litigate an identical issue that was adjudicated and had the judgment as an integral ...
Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law."
A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognise the judgment of a foreign court. In addition, in matters involving due process, cases that appear to be res judicata may be re-litigated ...
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause to provide two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government ...
Procedural due process is required by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [1]: 617 The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."