Kortenhaus v. Eli Lilly & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• defendant was not precluded from contesting liability conclusions reached in a companion case because there was inconsistency among prior judgments as to liability and the issues actually litigated in the companion case were unclear and may not have been identical
• explaining the concept of offensive collateral 3 A-0543-13T3 estoppel
• “The application of offensive collateral § Plaintiff relies heavily on State v. Rodriguez, 324 A.2d 911 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974) as the “closest precedent” under New Jersey law to the facts here. (ECF No. 32-1 at 14; ECF No. 42 at 2-4.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).