collateral estoppel doctrine in North Dakota

2022Rule 60(b)(4), N.D.R.Civ.P., states, “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: the judgment is void.” When analyzing a motion challenging a judgment as void under Rule 60(b)(4), “the court’s sole task is to determine the validity of the judgment.” Oden v. Minot Builders Supply, 2021 ND 30, ¶ 10 , 955 N.W.2d 102 .

2022Rule 60(b)(4), N.D.R.Civ.P., states, “On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: the judgment is void.” When analyzing a motion challenging a judgment as void under Rule 60(b)(4), “the court’s sole task is to determine the validity of the judgment.” Oden v. Minot Builders Supply, 2021 ND 30, ¶ 10 , 955 N.W.2d 102 .

2017Norberg argues the jury was allowed to find facts that were already litigated and found in the earlier criminal and divorce cases. [¶ 10] “Courts bar relitigation of claims and issues to promote the finality of judgments, which increases certainty, discourages multiple litigation, wards off wasteful delay and expense, and conserves judicial resources.” Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶ 9 , 684 N.W.2d 619 . “[Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally forecloses the relitigation, in a second action based on a different claim, of particular issues of either fact or law which wer

2017Norberg argues the jury was allowed to find facts that were already litigated and found in the earlier criminal and divorce cases. [¶ 10] “Courts bar relitigation of claims and issues to promote the finality of judgments, which increases certainty, discourages multiple litigation, wards off wasteful delay and expense, and conserves judicial resources.” Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶ 9 , 684 N.W.2d 619 . “[Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally forecloses the relitigation, in a second action based on a different claim, of particular issues of either fact or law which wer

2017Whether the district court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel is a “question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.” Hanneman v. Nygaard, 2010 ND 113, ¶ 12 , 784 N.W.2d 117 .

2017Whether the district court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel is a “question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.” Hanneman v. Nygaard, 2010 ND 113, ¶ 12 , 784 N.W.2d 117 .

2007Under traditional res judicata principles, the doctrine is not applicable to issues not considered or decided in the prior proceeding, and the doctrine applies only when the issues in the prior and current proceedings are “substantially identical.” Nodland v. Nokota Co., 314 N.W.2d 89 , 92 *256 (N.D.1981); see also Hofsommer, 488 N.W.2d at 384 (under related doctrine of collateral estoppel, issues must be identical).

1996In essence, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, “ ‘when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment [i.e., an acquittal], that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit [i.e., a prosecution].”’ Lange, 497 N.W.2d at 85 [quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 , 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469, 475 (1970) ].

1985The trial court’s order for summary judgment states, in pertinent part: “The Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not Morris A. Tsehider was representing the plaintiffs in the Kilzer-Binstock land sale, as that issue was resolved in Kilzer v. Binstock, 339 N.W.2d 569 (ND 1983) and thus that issue is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.