Legal Opinion

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 2010No. S162570PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion,1 is firmly embedded in both federal and California common law. It is grounded on the premise that “once ah issue has been resolved in a prior proceeding, there is no further factfinding function to be performed.” (Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979) 439 U.S. 322, 336, fn. 23 [58 L.Ed.2d 552, 99 S.Ct. 645].) “Collateral estoppel . . . has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. SoliminoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. People v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Samara v. MatarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  3. People v. CurielCalifornia Supreme Court · 2023
  4. Golin v. AllenbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010

34 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