Hopewell Estates, Inc. v. Kent

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts consider \whether both actions seek compensation for the same damages\ in determining whether claim preclusion applies
• noting that collateral estoppel is an “affirmative defense” that is waived if not raised in a timely fashion
• noting that a party waives the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel by not pleading them as new matter in an answer
• stating that the affirmative defense of collateral estopped must be pleaded in an answer as new matter
• restating prerequisites for finding of res judicata as follows: “(1) identity of the thing sued upon or for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons or parties to the actions; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued.”
• second action was a professional negligence claim that could not be raised and was not litigated in prior confession of judgment proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).