Legal Opinion
Foster v. Plock
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided May 15, 2017No. Supreme Court Case No. 16SC366PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rice
¶1 This case requires us to determine whether mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion.1 Multiple divisions of the court of appeals have concluded that mutuality need not be established for the defensive use of claim preclusion, but we disagree. Instead, we conclude that mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion. We also conclude that mutuality existed in this case, as did the remaining elements of claim preclusion, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals on other grounds.
I. Pacts and Procedural History
¶2 In 2011, Petitioner…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bill J. Gambocz v. Anthony M. YelencsicsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Lane v. PetersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
- Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. Felco Jewel Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In re Villas at Highland Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Villas at Highland Park, LLCSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017
- Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
- Pohl v. U.S. BankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- Gale v. City and County of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
- Foster v. PlockSupreme Court of Colorado · 2017
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.