Henry E. & Nancy Horton Bartels Trust ex rel. Cornell University v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
BLOCK, Judge.
This tax ease presents two issues. The first is one of first impression1 in this court: the extent to which collateral estoppel applies when the party to be precluded is alleged to have been “virtually represented” in the prior case by a different party alleging the same legal or factual interests. The doctrine of “virtual representation” is an .exception to the general rule in Anglo-American jurisprudence “that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wolfchild v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Wolfchild v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Anaheim Gardens v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- XXIII Capital Limited v. Decade, S.A.C., LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024