Legal Opinion

Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 2019No. CR-18-0050-PRPublishedCited by 18 opinions

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES authored the opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL and JUSTICES PELANDER and BOLICK joined. JUSTICE TIMMER, joined by JUSTICES GOULD and LOPEZ, dissented.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, opinion of the Court:

¶1 Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, precludes relitigating an issue of fact in a later case when, in a previous case, the same issue was "actually litigated, a final judgment was entered, and the party against whom the doctrine is to be invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate." Chaney Bldg. Co. v. City of Tucson , 148 Ariz. 571 , 573, 716 P.2d 28 , 30 (1986). We hold that issue preclusion may apply in a criminal proceeding when an issue of fact was previously adjudicated in a dependency proceeding and the other elements…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Yates v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Arik v. RgoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2021
  2. Best v. CejaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
  3. Charles E. Kelly, II v. Arizona Medical Board, et al.District Court, D. Arizona · 2025
  4. Collins v. Phoenix, City ofDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2024
  5. Fressadi v. GloverDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2020

13 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