Collateral Estoppel

News & Analysis as of

Ineligible Subject Matter in One Court Is Still Ineligible in Another

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. - Addressing the issue of whether the court was bound by another court’s holding that a patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible subject...more

Beleaguered D.C. Taxpayers Achieve Another Success in Ongoing Challenges to the Methodology Used in the District’s Transfer...

On Friday, November 14, 2014, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued three identical orders granting the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment in Hess v. OTR, Shell v. OTR and ExxonMobil v. OTR. In these orders, the ALJ...more

Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under...more

The Limits of CEQA Mitigation – Recent Judicial Applications of Nollan and Dolan

Perhaps foremost among the judicially recognized fundamental constraints on lead agencies’ power to impose various types of mitigation measures on project approvals in the CEQA process is the “doctrine of unconstitutional...more

Unlawful Development Permit Conditions Not Binding On Second Permit Applicant When Original Permit Expires Without Use – Second...

A major fact correction on rehearing led the Second Appellate District to reverse its earlier ruling in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission (2nd Dist., Div. 6, 10/23/14, B243015 (on rehearing). The court has now held...more

Coastal Commission Erred In Finding Property Owner Is Stuck With Unconstitutional Dedication Condition

In an opinion on rehearing, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned a California Coastal Commission decision that a condition of a county-issued coastal development permit could not be eliminated by a second coastal...more

FTC v. Cephalon, Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The issue in this case is not whether the validity of the ’516 patent should be litigated in the antitrust trial, but rather, how the court’s previous finding of invalidity and...more

U.S. District Court Judge Bars Plaintiff’s Individual Disability Claims in Their Entirety by Application of the Doctrine of...

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a judge adopted the Report and Recommendation of her magistrate judge and granted an individual disability insurer summary judgment on its...more

Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Recommends That Plaintiff’s Claims Be Barred in Their Entirety by Application of the Doctrine of...

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting an individual disability insurer summary judgment on an insured’s claims...more

Invalidity under § 101 and defensive collateral estoppel defeat second DietGoal case

CaDietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08381 - Last month, in DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC, Case No. 1:13–cv-08391–PAE, we reported on Judge Engelmayer’s invalidation of...more

A second patent in a chain falls to obviousness-type double patenting challenge

The court had previously determined that The Kennedy Trust’s U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the “parent patent”) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) to U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (“the grandparent“). At issue...more

Estopping the “Revolving Door” CEQA/Land Use Plaintiff: Roberson v. City of Rialto Holds Different Plaintiffs Litigating To...

In a decision ordered published on June 17, 2014, nearly a month after it was originally filed, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed a key element of the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel –...more

Collateral Estoppel Bars Copy-Cat Environmental Plaintiff in New Case After Judgment

Roberson v. City of Rialto (4th Dist., Div. 2, 5/21/2014, E058187) - The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate to invalidate project approvals for the construction...more

Un-Vacated: Appellate Courts Save Arbitration Awards

In SPX Corp. v. Garda USA, Inc., __A.3d__, 2014 WL 2708631 (Del. June 16, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery vacated an arbitration award (under its state arbitration act) after concluding the arbitrator manifestly...more

Forum-Shopping Insurance Companies' Latest Tricks

Decades ago, insurance companies tried to persuade trial courts in California to apply the law of some other state to multi-party environmental and asbestos insurance coverage disputes because the insurance companies believed...more

Bankruptcy Beat: Bankruptcy Court Applies To Collateral Estoppel To State Court Judgement For Fraud and Vexatious Litigation In...

In her first published decision, rendered in Mexico Construction and Paving v. Thompson (In re Thompson), Case No. 11-32924, Adv. Pro. No. 12-03065 (Bankr. D. Conn May 22, 2014), Judge Julie A. Manning held on the basis of...more

Collateral Estoppel Sinks LLC Members' Claim

It might seem uncontroversial that the members of a limited liability company cannot follow with a personal lawsuit for injuries after their LLC litigates, and loses, claims based on the same issues. But it took the Business...more

McIntyre: Not What You Bargained For?

When are the parties to a civil tax dispute bound by agreed facts from a criminal proceeding? This was the question considered by the Tax Court of Canada on a Rule 58 motion made by the taxpayers in McIntrye et al v....more

Bright Line Rule: Collateral Estoppel Precludes Attacks on Quasi-Judicial Permit Decisions (But Stay Tuned: Rehearing Granted on...

Simply stated: “[a] collateral attack is not a substitute for an appeal” reasoned the Second Appellate District Court in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission (2nd Dist., Div. 6, 03/18/2014, B243015) ___Cal.App.2nd___,...more

Insurance Recovery Law - Jan 30, 2014

California Court Recognizes Named, Additional Insureds Have Different Expectations - Why it matters: While the holding sounds straightforward – the reasonable expectations of an additional insured about the...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - August 2013: California: EDD Determination Has Binding Effect on DLSE

In Happy Nails & Spa of Fashion Valley, L.P. v. Su, a California appellate court held that a determination by one state agency was binding on another state agency and precluded the second agency’s contrary finding....more

California Agencies Don’t Get Two Bites At The Apple When It Comes To Misclassification

Happy Nails & Spa of Fashion Valley, LP, v. Julie Su, No. D060621 (July 19, 2013): A California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer does not have to relitigate the issue of whether the workers at its facilities are...more

Court Finds Two State Agencies Are In Privity Despite Being Created By Separate Statutes

The doctrine of collateral estoppel may seem to be a more fitting subject to a blog devoted to civil procedure than corporate law. However, the doctrine can have important ramifications in the corporate setting as I noted...more

An arbitration award may not be the end of the road in patent disputes - Several cases serve as examples to the contrary

When a patent dispute goes to arbitration, there is the possibility that an outside party could try to influence the outcome by going to court. This may come as a surprise, given that Section 294 of the Patent Act specifies...more

Patent Watch: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC

On April 19, 2013, in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman,* Prost, Reyna) affirmed the district court's ruling that prior litigation collaterally estopped Aspex...more

35 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2