holding that an argument is precluded when the issue argued is the same as that involved in the prior action, the issue was actually litigated and actually determined in a valid and final judgment, and that determination was essential to the prior judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding that an argument is precluded when the issue argued is the same as that involved in the prior action, the issue was actually litigated and actually determined in a valid and final judgment, and that determination was essential to the prior judgment
- applying collateral estoppel to issues decided by partial summary judgment based on consideration of “whether the parties were fully heard, whether a reasoned opinion was filed, and whether that decision could have been, or actually was, appealed”
- explaining that denial of summary judgment can sometimes support collateral estoppel
- stating that offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is subject to residual fairness determination by trial judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Sept. 20, 1995
The petition for rehearing filed by Appel-lees, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.