Law Commons^™

The Proper Role Of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In Title Vii Suits, Charles C. Jackson, John H. Matheson, Thomas J. Pikorski

Michigan Law Review

The Article proceeds from the premise, established in Part I, that federal courts must apply preclusion principles unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise. Part II considers a number of indicators of Congress's intent, and finds no evidence to rebut the presumption that federal courts must give preclusive weight to certain state decisions. Part III then proposes general guidelines for the application of preclusion doctrines in title VII litigation.

Collateral Estoppel And Supreme Court Disposition Of Moot Cases, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In response to the Government's novel proposal in Velsicol, this Note reconsiders the procedures by which the Supreme Court could dispose of moot cases. Section I examines the collateral estoppel effects of the Supreme Court's present procedure and the Government's proposal in Velsicol. Section II concludes that both procedures afford excessive protection from collateral estoppel because they misconceive the purpose of Supreme Court review. The Note suggests that, when faced with a moot federal petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court should either deny the petition or, if certiorari has already been granted, dismiss the case.

A Probabilistic Analysis Of The Doctrine Of Mutuality Of Collateral Estoppel, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Note lays the foundation for the conclusions suggested above by setting forth some elementary probabilistic notions and establishing a measure of trial efficacy. The next part reviews some of the early suggested limitations on the application of Bernhard and, by analyzing the mutuality requirement and the Bernhard doctrine in probabilistic terms, demonstrates that the concerns underlying those initial reservations were not only sound, but require rejection of Bernhard.

Although the primary purpose of this Note is to expose the flawed analysis underlying Bernhard, a secondary . purpose is to demonstrate how probability theory can …

Collateral Estoppel: Loosening The Mutuality Rule In Tax Litigation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Collateral estoppel is an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata that precludes relitigation of issues previously adjudicated. A judgment in a prior action may be held conclusive as to issues in a subsequent case. even though the later case technically involves a different cause of action. The rule of collateral estoppel seeks to conserve judicial energy, promote confidence in the judicial system, avoid litigant expense, promote community peace and reliance on judgments, and minimize inconsistent results. Countervailing policy concerns are the right of each person to have his day in court, the fear of increased litigation, the danger of …

Labor Law--Res Judicata--The Applicability Of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel To Actions Brought Under Section 8(B) (4) Of The National Labor Relations Act, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note is concerned primarily with the possibility of granting preclusive effect to the Board's determination of the issue of union liability under the section 8(b)(4) charge. Since traditional collateral estoppel principles must be adapted somewhat when applied to the Board's procedures, the preclusive effect given to the prior determination of liability will be referred to simply as "estoppel" in order to avoid confusion with the doctrine of collateral estoppel as it was developed in the courts.