|
P0978 The fact that a plaintiff's attorney represented two other plaintiffs in previous actions in which the issue of corporate successor liability was decided in favor of the same defendant was not sufficient to place the plaintiff in privity with parties to the prior actions and so does not justify application of issue preclusion (i.e., collateral estoppel) to prevent litigation of the issue in plaintiff's case.
RODGERS v SARGENT (Collateral Estoppel) 136 CA4 82 [See: Roos v Red 130 CA4 870, P/AT 9/05]
|
|