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]
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
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]
An Estoppel Certificate (or Estoppel Letter) is a document commonly used in due diligence in real estate and mortgage activities. It is based on estoppel, the legal principle that prevents or estops someone from claiming a change in the agreement later on. [1] It is used in a variety of countries for commercial and residential transactions.
Estoppel is a judicial device whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word. The person barred from doing so is said to be "estopped". [1] [2] Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim.
If you believe the law supports the retracted statement, cite a case in the article. --Hlsgrad 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Entirely US-centric. Perhaps the term "collateral estoppel" is a specific US term, but the principle of preclusion is found in other legal systems.
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.
The administrator contested all three heads of claim. The High Court awarded Jennings £200,000 taking into account the payments he had foregone, finding proprietary estoppel. It rejected his dependency claim, and stated that Royle's words had been too vague to make a contract or quasi-contract. [2]