mutuality requirement in Connecticut

1991Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 444 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969); State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156 , 173 , 527 A.2d 1157 (1987); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, supra. The doctrine of collateral estoppel differs from res judicata in that the latter involves claim preclusion, and the former, issue preclusion.

1991Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 444 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969); State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156 , 173 , 527 A.2d 1157 (1987); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, supra. The doctrine of collateral estoppel differs from res judicata in that the latter involves claim preclusion, and the former, issue preclusion.

2004Under the mutuality rule, [pjarties who were not actually adverse to one another in a prior proceeding could not assert collateral estoppel against one another in a subsequent action.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Torres v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 110, 135 , 733 A.2d 817 (1999), quoting Labbe v. Pension Commission, 239 Conn. 168,186 , 682 A.2d 490 (1996).

2004Under the mutuality rule, [pjarties who were not actually adverse to one another in a prior proceeding could not assert collateral estoppel against one another in a subsequent action.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Torres v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 110, 135 , 733 A.2d 817 (1999), quoting Labbe v. Pension Commission, 239 Conn. 168,186 , 682 A.2d 490 (1996).

1991Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 444 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969); State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156 , 173 , 527 A.2d 1157 (1987); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, supra. The doctrine of collateral estoppel differs from res judicata in that the latter involves claim preclusion, and the former, issue preclusion.

1991Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 444 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969); State v. Fritz, 204 Conn. 156 , 173 , 527 A.2d 1157 (1987); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, supra. The doctrine of collateral estoppel differs from res judicata in that the latter involves claim preclusion, and the former, issue preclusion.

1991In any lawsuit where a defendant, because of the mutuality principle, is forced to present a complete defense on the merits to a claim which the plaintiff has fully CT Page 7819 litigated and lost in a prior action, there is an arguable misallocation of resources. . . .Permitting repeated litigation of the same issue as long as the supply of unrelated defendants holds out reflects either the aura of the gaming table or `a lack of discipline and of disinterestedness on the part of the lower courts, hardly a worthy or wise basis for fashioning rules of procedure."' Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, I

1991In any lawsuit where a defendant, because of the mutuality principle, is forced to present a complete defense on the merits to a claim which the plaintiff has fully CT Page 7819 litigated and lost in a prior action, there is an arguable misallocation of resources. . . .Permitting repeated litigation of the same issue as long as the supply of unrelated defendants holds out reflects either the aura of the gaming table or `a lack of discipline and of disinterestedness on the part of the lower courts, hardly a worthy or wise basis for fashioning rules of procedure."' Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, I

1991CT Page 7818 The Gionfriddo court, at 405-406, traced the history and the reasons that the mutuality rule has been abrogated in other jurisdictions: The first major assault on the mutuality doctrine occurred in Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942).

1991CT Page 7818 The Gionfriddo court, at 405-406, traced the history and the reasons that the mutuality rule has been abrogated in other jurisdictions: The first major assault on the mutuality doctrine occurred in Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942).

2017Id., at 220 n.4, 265 N.W.2d 86 .

2017Id., at 220 n.4, 265 N.W.2d 86 .

1998As legal precedent for this argument, respondent cites Hill v. Hill , 39 Conn. App. 258 (1995).

1991The revised section provides as follows: "Parties who are not adversaries to each other under the pleadings in an action involving them and a third party are bound by and entitled to the benefits of issue preclusion with respect to issues they actually litigate fully and fairly as adversaries to each other and which are essential to the judgment rendered." Griffin v. Parker, 22 Conn. App. 610 , 615-16 (1990), rev'd. on other grounds, 219 Conn. 363 (1991).

1991The revised section provides as follows: "Parties who are not adversaries to each other under the pleadings in an action involving them and a third party are bound by and entitled to the benefits of issue preclusion with respect to issues they actually litigate fully and fairly as adversaries to each other and which are essential to the judgment rendered." Griffin v. Parker, 22 Conn. App. 610 , 615-16 (1990), rev'd. on other grounds, 219 Conn. 363 (1991).

1991Griffin, 22 Conn. App. at 615 -16 .

1991Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U.S. 180 , 18S, 72 S.Ct. 219 , 96 L.Ed.2d 200 (1952).

1991Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U.S. 180 , 18S, 72 S.Ct. 219 , 96 L.Ed.2d 200 (1952).

1991Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326-33 , 99 S. Ct. 645 , 58 L.

1991Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326-33 , 99 S. Ct. 645 , 58 L.

1991Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 421 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S. Ct. 87 , 95 L.

1991Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 421 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S. Ct. 87 , 95 L.

1991Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419, 421 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S. Ct. 87 , 95 L.