Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
I
It is the contention of appellee that appellant is foreclosed from pursuing his breach of contract and negligent termination claims in state court because the facts underlying the claims were determined in the federal proceeding. Appellee therefore relies on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel is often termed “issue preclusion.” Consequently, in order for an issue to be precluded in subsequent litigation involving a different cause of action, the issue must have actually been decided in the prior proceeding. See Taylor v. Monroe (1952), 158 Ohio St. 266, 49 O.O. 118, 109…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
- Helle v. Landmark, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984
- Hedrick v. Center for Comprehensive Alcoholism TreatmentOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Clark v. BaranowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- David A. Humphreys v. Bellaire CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Russ v. TRW, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Hanly v. Riverside Methodist HospitalsOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Karnes v. Doctors HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Wright v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.