Determining when the United States Constitution requires a jury trial in civil actions involves the analysis of various policy considerations. Two considerations—a party\u27s right to a jury trial and the use of collateral estoppel—have seemingly clashed in two federal courts of appeals decisions. This Note discusses the holding in Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co. and the reasons the second circuit felt Rachal v. Hill was wrongly decided. Finally, the effect of these two decisions on various policy considerations of both procedure and the security laws is examined. I. Introduction II. The Facts III. The Decision of the Court of Appeals … A. Rachal v. Hill … B. The Policy Grounds … C. The Historical Grounds IV. Analysis V. Conclusio
The United States sued defendant in two counts for violation of OPA price regulations. The first cou...
Plaintiff corporations, the sole shareholder of which was their president, sued defendant insurers t...
Large institutions such as banks, franchisers, international companies, and lessors distrust juries\...
Determining when the United States Constitution requires a jury trial in civil actions involves the ...
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979). The interplay of collateral estoppel and t...
This Note initially discusses the doctrine of collateral estoppel and its policy justifications. Nex...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
The doctrine of collateral estoppel involves the use of an old judgment in a new action to prevent t...
The Supreme Court in Ashe v. Swenson held that the fifth amendment\u27s guarantee against double jeo...
Collateral estoppel has been defined as the facet of the doctrine of judicial finality that deals w...
In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court ap- -proved the offensive, unilate...
Defendant had pleaded guilty to specific criminal charges under the False Claims Act. The United Sta...
Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio
In a criminal action Teitelbaum was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft, attempted grand t...
Offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff estops a defendant from relitigating an issue ...
The United States sued defendant in two counts for violation of OPA price regulations. The first cou...
Plaintiff corporations, the sole shareholder of which was their president, sued defendant insurers t...
Large institutions such as banks, franchisers, international companies, and lessors distrust juries\...
Determining when the United States Constitution requires a jury trial in civil actions involves the ...
Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979). The interplay of collateral estoppel and t...
This Note initially discusses the doctrine of collateral estoppel and its policy justifications. Nex...
It is, therefore, important in any analysis of the Ashe decision to examine the policies and purpose...
The doctrine of collateral estoppel involves the use of an old judgment in a new action to prevent t...
The Supreme Court in Ashe v. Swenson held that the fifth amendment\u27s guarantee against double jeo...
Collateral estoppel has been defined as the facet of the doctrine of judicial finality that deals w...
In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court ap- -proved the offensive, unilate...
Defendant had pleaded guilty to specific criminal charges under the False Claims Act. The United Sta...
Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio
In a criminal action Teitelbaum was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft, attempted grand t...
Offensive collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff estops a defendant from relitigating an issue ...
The United States sued defendant in two counts for violation of OPA price regulations. The first cou...
Plaintiff corporations, the sole shareholder of which was their president, sued defendant insurers t...
Large institutions such as banks, franchisers, international companies, and lessors distrust juries\...