Brown v. Merton

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that conviction for harassment in the second degree did not have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent civil action
• noting that effectiveness of counsel is one of nine factors to be considered in determining the full and fair opportunity to litigate
• explaining that, as a matter of history and necessity, collateral estoppel “can never be rigidly or mechanically applied” (collecting cases)
• applying collateral estoppel against defendants based on findings made in prior action in which they were also defendants
• permitting preclusion in such circumstances could ultimately frustrate the purposes of collateral estoppel
• describing how “violations” are “petty infractions below the grade of a misdemeanor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).