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]
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.
Litigation concerning the Relitigation Exception centers on whether the requirements of claim preclusion (also called res judicata) and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel) were met in a previously-decided federal action.
It pointed out that requirement of mutuality of estoppel was a judge-made doctrine. Triplett was decided in 1936, but even then "the mutuality rule had been under fire." The Court quoted Judge Henry Friendly 's observation that Jeremy Bentham "had attacked the doctrine 'as destitute of any semblance of reason, and as a maxim which one would ...
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]
Case history; Prior: 50 F.2d 795 (7th Cir. 1931); cert. granted, 284 U.S. 607 (1931).: Holding; If the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there is one or two offenses is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more