State v. Mundegerick Mitchum

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that treating as preclusive an issue “implicitly raised” in a prior proceeding would conflate the “necessarily decided” and “actually litigated” requirements
• holding, in immigration context, that a grant of asylum does not preclude the government’s subsequent litigation of an asylum requirement neither litigated nor addressed in the original action
• setting forth the elements of issue preclusion and explaining that “an issue is actually litigated when an issue is raised, contested, and submitted for determination”
• listing as element of issue 22 preclusion that “the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceedings,” and “the issue was necessary to decide the merits” (quotation omitted)
• explaining difference between “actually litigated” and “full and fair opportunity” requirements
• “Even if an issue is not explicitly raised, if it is necessary to the ultimate determination, it is “necessarily decided.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).