Luben Industries, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that 8 Defendants cite cases for the proposition that “the ‘actual entry of a final judgment’ is ‘final’ for purposes of collateral estoppel,” “notwithstanding any appeal.” (D.1. 62 at 3
• to be final determination for collateral estop-pel purposes, determination does not have to be final judgment, but merely “sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect”
• interlocutory order that was not immediately appealable when entered not entitled to preclusive effect
• “[W]e are convinced that the Government did not have a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ its claim because it could not appeal the interlocutory memorandum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).