green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
2.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nestle Co., Inc. v. Chester's Market, Inc.
stoppel is no mere technicality but a reasonable measure calculated to save individuals and courts from the waste and burden of relitigating old issues.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoppe v. G.D. Searle & Co.
Collateral estoppel has the twin purposes of “protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); see Tillman v. National City Bank of New York, 118 F.2d 631, 634 , cert. denied, 314 U.S. 650 , 62 S.Ct. 96 , 86 L.Ed. 521 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Red Dot Scenic, Inc.
See, e.g., Tillman v. National City Bank of N.Y., 118 F.2d 631, 635 (2d Cir.1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 650 , 62 S.Ct. 96 , 86 L.Ed. 521 (1941); GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 519 F.Supp. 1203, 1213 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (conceded issues form basis for collateral estoppel); see also Abbott Bank v. Armstrong, 44 F.3d 665, 667 (8th Cir.1995) (collateral estoppel applied, based on issue admitted in answer where defendant made no effort to raise a related issue that could have had a material bearing on outcome of first litigation).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Norris v. Grosvenor Marketing Limited
"Collateral estoppel, like the related doctrine of res judicata, has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation." Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (citation and footnote omitted); see also Tillman v. National City Bank of New York, 118 F.2d 631, 634 (2d Cir.) (collateral estoppel is a "reasonable measure calculated to save individuals and courts from the waste and burden of relitigating …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Norris v. Grosvenor Marketing Ltd.
“Collateral estoppel, like the related doctrine of res judicata, has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 , 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (citation and footnote omitted); see also Tillman v. National City Bank of New York, 118 F.2d 631, 634 (2d Cir.) (collateral estoppel is a “reasonable measure calculated to save individuals and courts from the waste and burden of relitig…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moyer
v.
Hines, Administrator of Veterans Affairs
v.
Hines, Administrator of Veterans Affairs
No. 297.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 13, 1941.
Messrs. Paul D. Smith and Thomas II. Sutherland for petitioner. Assistant Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Melvin H. Siegel and Paul A. Sweeney for respondent.
Published
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (1)
Petition for writ of[*608] certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and motion for leave to proceed further in forma pauperis, denied.
Messrs. Paul D. Smith and Thomas II. Sutherland for petitioner. Assistant Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Melvin H. Siegel and Paul A. Sweeney for respondent.