Rhone 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.

• noting differences between the federal common law of collateral estoppel and Wisconsin's law of collateral estoppel
• listing cases and describing as “absurd” the idea that pro se litigants are insulated from the principles of res judicata, including issue preclusion
• “[T]he idea that litigating pro se should insulate a litigant from application of the collateral estoppel doctrine . . . is absurd.”
• “[T]he idea that litigating pro se should insulate a litigant from application of the collateral estoppel doctrine . . . is absurd.”
• first citing Estate of Rille, 728 N.W.2d at 707; and then citing United States v. Rosales, 716 F.3d 996, 997 (7th Cir. 2013)
• “[T]he idea that litigating pro se should insulate a litigant from application of the collateral estoppel doctrine . . . is absurd.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).