Dorrance v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior action
• holding that, for purposes of collateral estoppel, final judgment was “on the merits” where the party “had the opportunity to fully defend herself”
• “Where a party, ... had the opportunity to fully defend herself against claims of negligent driving—the same issue here—the final judgment from that proceeding was ‘on the merits.’ ”
• “[A] judgment is final where the time to appeal has expired without an appeal being taken.”
• final judgment from previous proceeding was \on the merits\ where appellant had opportunity to fully defend claims
• \The interpretation of a rule promulgated by the courts involves principles of statutory construction.\ (Quoting Cresencia v. Kim, 85 Hawai`i 334, 335, 944 P.2d 1277, 1278 (1997).)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).