Thomas Dodd Doris Dodd v. Hood River County, and State of Oregon, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party may not re-ligitate in federal court an issue identical to one that has already been litigated in state court under the same standards
• explaining that a “full evidentiary hearing,” where, among other things, witnesses could be cross-examined and only sworn testimony was accepted, would “no doubt” have provided “a full and fair opportunity to litigate”
• explaining that state law determines requirements for collateral estoppel
• fact that property could be used for “timber production” was considered economically viable use, even though the plaintiffs wanted to build a retirement home
• married couple had no reasonable investment-backed expectation that they could build retirement home upon timber property, in light of laws when land purchased
• owners of forest land purchased for retirement home could establish only minimal investment-backed expectations in property due to state regulations regarding type of dwellings permitted in forest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).