Ben Klein v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing that a party cannot argue that a change of facts prevents the application of issue preclusion if those changed facts were shown to have been discoverable during the previous matter
• asking whether “legal principles have changed significantly” (citing Montana, 440 U.S. at 153–55)
• \A party may not assert a change in controlling facts when the facts allegedly showing a change in circumstances could have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence.\
• this Court did not err in concluding that new expert testimony regarding the taxpayer’s mental incompetency did not change the controlling facts for purposes of collateral estoppel when similar evidence had been presented and considered in the prior proceeding
• this Court did not err in concluding that new expert testimony regarding the taxpayer's mental incompetency did not change the controlling facts for purposes of collateral estoppel when similar evidence had been presented and considered in the prior proceeding
• this Court did not err in concluding that new expert testimony regarding the taxpayer's mental incompetency did not change the controlling facts for purposes of collateral estoppel when similar evidence had been presented and considered in the prior proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).