DiPiazza v. Fritz

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant made a colorable assertion of collateral estoppel because the prior and instant lawsuits both arose from the same building demolition
• concluding that appellant made a colorable assertion of collateral estoppel because the prior and instant lawsuits both arose from the same building demolition
• concluding that appellant made a colorable assertion of collateral estoppel because the prior and instant lawsuits both arose from the same building demolition
• concluding that appellant made a colorable assertion of collateral estoppel because the prior and instant lawsuits both arose from the same building demolition
• holding that collateral estoppel applies to quasi-judicial decisions by a municipal body and \precludes a party from contesting a previously decided factual issue\ resolved therein (citation omitted)
• “As a general proposition, a trial court’s consideration of a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint” or counterclaim, as applicable.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).