- 17 -
proceedings of a State shall have the same full faith and credit
in every court within the United States as they have in the
courts of the State from which they are taken); Kremer v.
Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 482 (1982) (“Congress has
specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive
effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of the State
from which the judgments emerged would do so", quoting Allen v.
McCurrey, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980)); Bertoli v. Commissioner, 103
T.C. 501, 508 (1994). The doctrine of collateral estoppel is
recognized in the courts of Montana. E.g., Rafanelli v. Dale,
971 P.2d 371, 373 (Mont. 1998) (“The doctrine of collateral
estoppel bars a party against whom the claim is asserted or a
party in privity with the earlier party, from relitigating an
issue which has been decided in a different cause of action.”).
The Supreme Court of Montana applies a three-part test to
determine whether collateral estoppel bars litigation: (1) Was
the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the
one presented in the action in question? (2) Was there a final
judgment on the merits? (3) Was the party against whom the plea
is asserted a party in privity with a party to the prior
litigation? See id. at 373-374. Although the three-part test
applied by the Supreme Court of Montana does not specifically
recognize the fourth and fifth Peck requirements (actual
litigation of an issue whose resolution was essential to prior
case and no change in controlling facts and applicable legal
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011