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.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Hackler v. Hackler.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hackler v. Hackler Anchor | green | “one who was a witness in an action, fully acquainted with its character and object and interested in its results, is estopped by the judgment as fully as if he had been a party.” | 6 |
| 2 | United States v. Claude S. Birtle | green | “the general rule is that appellants cannot raise a new issue for the first time in their reply briefs.” | 3 |
| 3 | Plaine v. Mccabe | green | “the availability of collateral estoppel is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo” | 3 |
| 4 | Swanson v. May | green | “failure to give reasonable notification of a proposed disposition does not automatically bar the secured party from recovering a deficiency judgment” | 3 |
| 5 | Hackler v. Hackler | green | “there is an exception to ... this requirement.” | 3 |
| 6 | Merchants Leasing Co. v. Clark | green | “failure to give notice ... does not invalidate the deficiency judgment itself” | 3 |
| 7 | Malland v. Department of Retirement Systems | green | “the party against whom the plea is asserted ... was a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.