Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 3 courts 1956–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rohrbasser v. Lederergreen2 sentences2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati 2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati | 1 | 2 |
Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp.green2 sentences2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati 2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati | 1 | 2 |
Evans v. Celotex Corp.green2 sentences2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu 2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu | 1 | 2 |
Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc.green2 sentences2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu 2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu | 1 | 2 |
Lucido v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu 2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu | 1 | 2 |
Horan v. Roangreen1 sentence2020(See Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1533 [dismissal with prejudice following a settlement constitutes a final judgment on the merits].) 17 if some factual matters or legal theories that could have been presented with respect to that issue were not presented. [Citations.] A prior decision does not establish collateral estoppel, however, on issues that could have been raised and decided in the prior proceeding but were not. [Citations.]” (Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034 , 1042–1043, italics added.) This “is not an easy rule to apply, for the term ‘ | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because “[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] . . . any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect.” (Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 973 (Malkoskie).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, informal or specialized adjudication.5 As a general matter in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Lesher
green
2 sentences2020(See Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1533 [dismissal with prejudice following a settlement constitutes a final judgment on the merits].) 17 if some factual matters or legal theories that could have been presented with respect to that issue were not presented. [Citations.] A prior decision does not establish collateral estoppel, however, on issues that could have been raised and decided in the prior proceeding but were not. [Citations.]” (Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034 , 1042–1043, italics added.) This “is not an easy rule to apply, for the term ‘ 2017Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. [Citations.] The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements." ( Lucido , at p. 341, 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 .) 4 It is often said that collateral estoppel "is not an easy rule to apply, for the term 'issue' as used in this connection is difficult to define, and the pleadings and proof in each case must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether a particular issue was raised even though some legal theory, argu | 3 | 2017–2020 |
Vandenberg v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati 2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation District
green
2 sentences2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because "[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] ... any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect." ( Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 , 973, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 ( Malkoskie ).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, *924 informal or specialized adjudicati 2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because “[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] . . . any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect.” (Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 973 (Malkoskie).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, informal or specialized adjudication.5 As a general matter in | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp.
green
1 sentence2020(See Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1533 [dismissal with prejudice following a settlement constitutes a final judgment on the merits].) 17 if some factual matters or legal theories that could have been presented with respect to that issue were not presented. [Citations.] A prior decision does not establish collateral estoppel, however, on issues that could have been raised and decided in the prior proceeding but were not. [Citations.]” (Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034 , 1042–1043, italics added.) This “is not an easy rule to apply, for the term ‘ | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wright v. Ripley
green
1 sentence2017(See Smith, at p. 1415 [applying “collateral estoppel in this case is unfair and bad policy . . . because of [an] inability at the prior adjudication to obtain expert testimony”]; Wright v. Ripley (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1189 , 1193–1196 [civil litigation process would “grind to a halt” if orders on motions for sanctions were given collateral estoppel effect because of the incentive lawyers would have to litigate such proceedings exhaustively when faced with the prospect of binding consequences in other proceedings].) Ayala does not invoke any such exception, nor do we perceive a basis for one. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kelly v. Vons Companies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017The Collateral Estoppel Effect of Unlawful Detainer Judgments Because “[a]n unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession[,] . . . any judgment arising therefrom generally is given limited res judicata effect.” (Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 973 (Malkoskie).) The approach courts take to applying collateral estoppel in this setting is broadly consistent with that taken to the collateral estoppel effect given other forms of summary, informal or specialized adjudication.5 As a general matter in | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences1985Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 921-933, fn. 5.) The prospect of defendants automatically being sued for malicious defense or subject to an easy standard for determining if an appeal is frivolous has previously raised substantial concerns about the potential chilling effect on the right of a defendant to present its case. 1985Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 921-933, fn. 5.) The prospect of defendants automatically being sued for malicious defense or subject to an easy standard for determining if an appeal is frivolous has previously raised substantial concerns about the potential chilling effect on the right of a defendant to present its case. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Sutphin v. Speik
green
2 sentences1956(See discussion, Sutphin v. Speik, 15 Cal.2d 195 [ 99 P.2d 652 , 101 P.2d 497 ]; Pacific Mut. 1956(See discussion, Sutphin v. Speik, 15 Cal.2d 195 [ 99 P.2d 652 , 101 P.2d 497 ]; Pacific Mut. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.