Incollingo v. Maurer

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that collateral estoppel “operates to prevent a question of law or issue of fact which has once been litigated and fully determined by a court of competent jurisdiction from being relitigated in a subsequent suit”
• finding full and fair opportunity to litigate issue where plaintiff testified, was represented by counsel, submitted “extensive documentation pertaining to his damages’, and arbitrators “were apprised of the full range of [Incollingo’s] claims”
• “There is no requirement under the doctrine of collateral estoppel that the party raising the defense be involved in the original action, but only that the party against whom it is being raised was a party in the initial proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).