- 30 -
We conclude that the parties to the prior case actually
litigated the issue before us today and that the issue was
essential to the prior decision. Accordingly, we hold that this
element of collateral estoppel is present in the instant case.
3. Absence of Special Circumstances
We consider whether special circumstances warrant an
exception to the normal rules of preclusion. Montana v. United
States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979); Brotman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C.
141 (1995). Special circumstances include the absence of a full
and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior case.
Brotman v. Commissioner, supra at 151. A mere allegation that
the earlier decision was wrong will not suffice. Id. Collateral
estoppel will not apply only if "there is reason to doubt the
quality, extensiveness, or fairness of procedures followed in
prior litigation." Montana v. United States, supra at 164 n.11.
There is no reason to question any aspect of the procedures
followed by the courts in the prior case. Those procedures amply
afforded petitioner the opportunity to litigate its case. In
fact, after the prior case was transferred to Judge Pollack,
petitioner conducted substantial discovery over a period of
almost 2 years. FMC Corp. v. Boesky, 36 F.3d at 260. The court
also held a 3-day evidentiary hearing on Goldman's motion for
petitioner would have it be, that petitioner is entitled to its
claimed theft loss.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011