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 law relating to contractual estoppel (in English law) was summarised in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386: There is no reason in principle why parties to a contract should not agree that a certain state of affairs should form the basis for the transaction, whether it be the case or not.
the determination of the issue was a critical and necessary part of the final judgment in a prior trial, and; the issue is the same one decided in the previous trial." [7] The goal of direct estoppel is to prevent a party from litigating the same cause of action or motion without having new legal or factual issues. [8]
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.
[18] She remarked that "the rash of nationwide injunctions strikes at the heart of our democratic system" because a nationwide injunction "seriously impedes decision-making in the federal courts by interfering with percolation of a contested legal issue," "invites unvarnished 'judge-shopping,' undermining faith in our judiciary," and "allows ...
In the IRAC method of legal analysis, the "issue" is simply a legal question that must be answered. An issue arises when the facts of a case present a legal ambiguity that must be resolved in a case, and legal researchers (whether paralegals, law students, lawyers, or judges) typically resolve the issue by consulting legal precedent (existing statutes, past cases, court rules, etc.).
In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law. The rules of preemption seek to restrict it to only where it is explicit or necessary. In the course of adjudicating cases, the issue of preemption may be heard in either state or federal court.
For example, a judge's decision not to hire an applicant for a job is not a "judicial" decision. However, in the prisoner rights case of Forchion v. Intensive Supervision Parole, et.al. , 240 F.Supp.2d 302 (2003) the federal district court Judge Irenas (Camden, NJ) interceded when it ruled " The Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not apply to this ...