Cold Springs Farm Development, Inc. v. Ball
Supreme Court of Vermont
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
- Trepanier v. Getting Organized, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1990
- Sanderson v. NiemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union High School District No. 27Supreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- Price v. LelandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1988
- Berisha v. HardySupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.