Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cold Springs Farm Development, Inc. v. Ball

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 7, 1995No. 94-069Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAllen, C.J.

The majority holds today that small claims judgments have no preclusive effect on future litigation. I dissent because this per se rule encourages needless relitigation, wastes resources of litigants and courts, was not addressed by either party, and will undoubtedly prove unfair in some cases. I concur with the majority that seller is not precluded from bringing this breach of contract claim on the ground that it did not pursue this as a counterclaim in small claims court. I would reverse the summary judgment on damages only.

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Trepanier v. Getting Organized, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1990
  2. Sanderson v. NiemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union High School District No. 27Supreme Court of Vermont · 1993
  4. Price v. LelandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
  5. Berisha v. HardySupreme Court of Vermont · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API