Powell v. Lane
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentElana Cunningham Wills, Justice
Because I do not agree that the default judgment entered in the paternity action has preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, I respectfully dissent.
As the majority points out, one required element of collateral estoppel is that the issue sought to be precluded must have been “actually litigated.” “The question of whether an issue has been previously litigated is interpreted very narrowly for purposes of collateral estoppel.” In re Estate of Goston v. Ford Motor Co., 320 Ark. 699, 705, 898 S.W.2d 471, 473 (1995) (citing Smith v. Roane, 284 Ark. 568, 683 S.W.2d 935 (1983)).…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- In Re Norman Docteroff, Debtor, Bert L. Wolstein Lady Iris Corporation v. Norman DocteroffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- In Re Freddie Maxton Bush, Debtor. Freddie Maxton Bush v. Balfour Beatty Bahamas, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1995
- In Re Gregory Dewitt Cantrell, DebtorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Grip-Pak, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.