Wortham v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Wortham v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the federal principle of collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of an adversely decided issue by a party who has 232 once had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues, regardless of whether his present adversary was a party to the previous lawsuit.”
46 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reticulum Management, LLC v. Dean, III (txnb, 2021-12-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Reticulum Management, LLC v. Dean, III
Bankr. N.D. Tex. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
non-mutual defensive collateral estoppel bars a plaintiff from litigating the same issue against successive defendants after that issue has been decided adversely to that plaintiff.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Lincoln-Dodge, Inc. v. Sullivan
D.R.I. · 2008 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the federal principle of collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of an adversely decided issue by a party who has 232 once had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues, regardless of whether his present adversary was a party to the previous lawsuit.
discussed Cited "see" John W. Vicory v. Robert R. Walton, Sheriff of Butler County and John F. Holcomb, Butler County Prosecutor (2×)
6th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265, 267 (M.D.Ga.), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.1976); Capitol City Manor, Inc. v. Culberson, 1 Ark.App. 137 , 613 S.W.2d 835, 837 (1981); Jackson v. District of Columbia, 412 A.2d 948, 951 (D.C.App.1980); Haddad v. Louisville Gas & Electric Company, 449 S.W.2d 916, 919-920 (Ky.1969); Kooper v. King, 195 Cal.App.2d 621 , 15 Cal.Rptr. 848, 852 (1961); 78 A.L.R. 938 , 939. 21 Therefore, I would reverse with directions to enter judgment for both defendants on the basis of immunity alone. 22 I am constrained to conclude that Parratt, supra, is not applicable t…
discussed Cited "see" Jackson v. District of Columbia
D.C. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265, 267 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1976); Beall v. Kearney & Trecker Corp., 350 F.Supp. 978, 981 (D.Md.1972); see also North Central Truck Lines v. United States, 381 F.Supp. 1217, 1220 (W.D.Mo.1974), aff’d, 420 U.S. 901 , 95 S.Ct. 820 , 42 L.Ed.2d 832 (1975). 4 The plaintiffs here were not prejudiced by the defendants’ failure to amend their answer to include the collateral estoppel defense.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Forest Oil Corp. v. Tenneco, Inc.
S.D. Miss. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d sub nom 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1978) (extending the Aerojet-General holding to include collateral estoppel); Stovall, 632 F.2d at 540.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Goldkind v. Snider Bros., Inc.
D.C. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265, 267 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir.1976) (failure to plead collateral estop-pel in answer pursuant to Rule 8(c) was not fatal because “both parties after being informed of this issue by the court submitted briefs and thus no prejudice has resulted to the plaintiff by defendant’s noncompliance with this rule”); Beall v. Kearney & Trecker Corp., 350 F.Supp. 978, 981 (D.Md.1972) (even though res judicata was not raised in the pleadings, it would be considered by the court because both parties had briefed the issue).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
D. Minnesota · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 908 , 96 S.Ct. 210 , 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975), and Willis v. Fournier, 418 F.Supp. 265 (M.D.Ga.), aff’d without opinion, 537 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1976) (applying federal law of res judicata and collateral estoppel), with McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 502 F.Supp. 335, 338-39 (S.D.Miss.1980) (applying state law of collateral estoppel).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wortham
v.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
76-1744.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 11, 1976.
537 F.2d 1142
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: D. Rhode Island (1) · N.D. Texas (1)

537 F.2d 1142

Wortham
v.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.[*]#

No. 76-1744

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

8/11/76

S.D.Tex., 399 F.2d 633

AFFIRMED

*

Summary Calendar case; Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

# Local Rule 21 case; see NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.