Legal Opinion

Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1969No. 69-24PublishedCited by 230 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

Appellant argues that this injured minor is estopped to relitigate the identical issues involved in *112her parent’s derivative action in the Sylvania Municipal Court for loss of services and medical expenses. Thus, this case presents the question whether the defense of collateral estoppel applies to one who was not a party to the prior suit in which the identical issues were determined.

The doctrine of res judicata involves two basic concepts. Norwood v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 N. E. 2d 67. First, it refers to the effect a judgment in a prior action has in a second action based upon…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Norwood v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Conold v. SternOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Wright v. SchickOhio Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by230 opinions

  1. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Grava v. Parkman Twp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. In Re: Daniel Fordu, Debtor. Harold A. Corzin v. Julie A. ForduCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  5. Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983

225 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