- 47 -
court’s opinion, two of the three factors articulated in Lummus
in determining finality, are missing. We conclude the bankruptcy
court’s opinion is not sufficiently final to be accorded
preclusive effect.
The “Injustice Exception” to Collateral Estoppel
Even if the technical requirements of collateral estoppel
had been satisfied in the case at hand--they were not–-we would
not give preclusive effect to the bankruptcy court’s opinion
because of concerns for justice and fair dealing. In the case at
hand, to give credence to petitioner’s contentions would
implicate the “manifest injustice” exception to collateral
estoppel.
We acknowledge that the exception to collateral estoppel for
“manifest injustice” is applied by courts with “great caution” to
ensure that collateral estoppel’s goals of assuring finality and
conserving judicial resources are not frustrated. 18 Wright
et al., Fed. Practice and Procedure, sec. 4426; see also
RecoverEdge v. Pentecost, 44 F.3d 1284, 1290-1291 n. 12 (5th Cir.
1995). Nevertheless, this is an appropriate case for the
“injustice” exception because the issue of the Court’s
jurisdiction has not been decided, despite petitioner’s
assertions to the contrary.
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011