United States v. Joseph Cala

How courts have described this case

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

• summarizing Ashe v. Swenson , 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)
• “the defendant can prevail only if the issue which he seeks to preclude from consideration was ‘necessarily’ resolved in his favor in the prior proceeding”
• \The burden . . . is on [the one asserting collateral estoppel] to establish that the issue he seeks to foreclose from litigation in the present prosecution was necessarily decided in his favor by the prior verdict.\
• `The burden . . . is on [the one asserting collateral estoppel] to establish that the issue he seeks to foreclose from litigation in the present prosecution was necessarily decided in his favor by the prior verdict.'
• 'The burden ... is on [the one asserting collateral estoppel] to establish that the issue he seeks to foreclose from litigation in the present prosecution was necessarily decided in his favor by the prior verdict.'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).