Comes v. Microsoft Corp.
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
STREIT, Justice.
Justice Felix Frankfurter once observed, “to some lawyers, all facts are created equal.” However, for the purposes of collateral estoppel, they are not. The defendant, Microsoft Corporation, was granted permission to take an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s ruling that collateral estoppel would apply to 352 findings of fact arising from prior federal antitrust litigation. Because we find the district court’s application of the “necessary and essential” requirement of collateral estoppel was too broad, we reverse the district court’s order and remand with…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- The Evergreens v. NunanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Hunter v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
- Whelan v. AbellCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1992
- Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- York v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2011
- Melissa Stender v. Anthony Zane BlessumSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
- City of Johnston v. ChristensonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2006
- Grant v. Iowa Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2006
- Sharon Moad, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Douglas Moad, and as Personal Representative on Behalf of Travis Moad and Heather Johnson v. Dakota Truck Underwriters, Risk Administrative Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2013
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.