- 40 -
(1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990). For collateral
estoppel to apply in a factual context, the following conditions
must be met: (1) The issue in the second suit must be identical
in all respects with the one decided in the first suit; (2) there
must be a final judgment rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (3) collateral estoppel may be invoked against
parties and their privies to the prior judgment; (4) the parties
must have actually litigated the issues and the resolution of
these issues must have been essential to the prior decision; and
(5) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules must remain
unchanged. Peck v. Commissioner, supra at 166-167.
The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of collateral
estoppel beyond its common-law limits by abandoning the
requirement of mutuality of the parties, and has conditionally
approved the “offensive” use of collateral estoppel by a
plaintiff who was not a party to the prior lawsuit. See Parklane
Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 331 (1979). However,
offensive use of collateral estoppel only applies when a
plaintiff seeks to foreclose a defendant from relitigating an
issue the defendant previously litigated unsuccessfully in
another action against the same or a different party. Id. at 326
n.4. Further, the Supreme Court subsequently held that nonmutual
offensive collateral estoppel could not be applied to preclude
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011