Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Collateral Estoppel, Rose M. Alexander, Ofie T. Rubin, Anita G. Vaughn, Carol L. Wingo
Collateral Estoppel, Rose M. Alexander, Ofie T. Rubin, Anita G. Vaughn, Carol L. Wingo
University of Richmond Law Review
The doctrine of collateral estoppel involves the use of an old judgment in a new action to prevent the relitigation of issues resolved by that old judgment. At common law, use of the doctrine required that the party using collateral estoppel and the party against whom it was used be the same as the parties to the prior judgment. This common law requirement of mutuality has been relaxed and since the United States Supreme Court's 1979 decision in ParklaneHoisery Co. v. Shore, the strict common law requirement of mutuality has all but completely vanished. In Parklane the Court sanctioned the …
Panterv. Marshall Field & Co.: The Good Faith Standard For Corporate Directors, Lavinia A. James
Panterv. Marshall Field & Co.: The Good Faith Standard For Corporate Directors, Lavinia A. James
University of Richmond Law Review
Corporate directors traditionally have been immunized from liability for corporate actions involving questions of policy or "business judgment," if such actions are taken in the exercise of due care, in good faith, and in compliance with applicable fiduciary duties. Judicial review of decisions made by corporate boards of directors in unsolicited takeovers generally has been barred by this business judgment rule. A recent challenge to this precept was brought in Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., a Seventh Circuit decision which highlighted many of the issues surrounding application of the business judgment rule in the context of a take-over attempt.