Skip to main content

In re T. M. G.

Citations

  • 275 Ga. 543
  • 570 S.E.2d 327

How courts have described this case

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

  • requiring for collateral estoppel “identity of the parties ... in both actions” and that same issue “actually [was] litigated and decided in the previous action” or “necessarily had to be decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered”
  • requiring for collateral estoppel “identity of the parties . . . in both actions” and that same issue “actually [was] litigated and decided in the previous action” or “necessarily had to be decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered”
  • only as to this Court’s conclusion that the Edmondsons “acted and were treated as parties” and were therefore bound by collateral estoppel
  • \the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies\ is barred by collateral estoppel
  • “the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies” is barred by collateral estoppel
  • foster parents’ claim for adoption of child not barred because they were not a party to earlier adoption proceeding with different prospective parents, nor were their interests represented by the parties to that proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sears

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.