Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]
The Court explained that the collateral estoppel effect of Vornado v. Duracraft precluded Vornado from relitigating its trade dress claim. Additionally, it rejected Vornado's argument that an intervening Federal Circuit case, [ 3 ] which disagreed with the 10th Circuit's reasoning in the Duracraft case, constituted a change in the law of trade ...
Estoppel by convention in English law (also known as estoppel by agreement) occurs where two parties negotiate or operate a contract but make a mistake. If they share an assumption, [36] belief, or understanding of the contract's interpretation or legal effect, then they are bound by it, if: [citation needed]
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.
Estoppel forms part of the rules of equity, which were originally administered in the Chancery courts. Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.
The doctrine of direct estoppel prevents a party to litigation from relitigating an issue that was decided against that party. [1] 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]
In fact there were at that time no cases in which the courts had declined to give effect to such clauses, and the one case which Lord Denning cited J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1078) was really a case of estoppel and concerned a different sort of clause altogether.
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, spam, collateral estoppel, standing (law), summary judgment Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen was a United States District Court for the District of Idaho case which clarified the meaning of "internet access provider" and "direct adverse" effect as used in the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ...