Briggs v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Restatement factors to hold that, where state did not appeal suppression ruling, it was collaterally estopped from relitigating the suppression issue
• order suppressing breathalyzer test in criminal case operates as collateral estoppel in license revocation proceedings
• collateral estoppel arises only from judgment that is \sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect\ and that is subject to appeal
• “Under the circumstances presented here, we hold that the Department of Public Safety and the state were in privity.”
• “ ‘[F]inal judgment’ includes ‘any prior adjudication of an issue ... that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.’ ”
• the Department of Public Safety and the state were in privity because the general rule is that litigation by one agency is binding on other agencies of the same government

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).