About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/resndjmts0040 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS 2D Generally C.A.5, 2019. Cit. generally in disc. and in diss. op. Arrestee filed a petition for federal habeas corpus, arguing that the government was precluded under the Double Jeopardy Clause from retrying him for second-degree specific-intent murder. Affirming the district court's denial of arrestee's petition, this court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court frequently relied on the Restatement Second of Judgments in analyzing collateral-estoppel issues and, by extension, double-jeopardy issues. The dissent argued that the majority deviated from federal caselaw by applying the Restatement's issue-preclusion standards to double-jeopardy questions. Langley v. Prince, 926 F.3d 145, 168, 182. Ariz.App.2019. Cit. generally in disc. After Arizona Department of Child Safety's petition to terminate arrestee's parental rights was stayed for further hearings, and the Department re-filed its petition, the juvenile court entered judgment for the Department. This court affirmed, holding that, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, the juvenile court's previous order did not bar the Department's subsequent petition. The court explained that the previous order was not a final judgment on the merits, noting that Arizona looked to the Restatement Second of Judgments to define concepts such as final judgment on the merits. Lawrence T. v. Department of Child Safety, 438 P.3d 259, 262. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Scope Ill.App.2019. Scope Note quot. in case quot. in sup. Insurer of motorist who was involved in an accident with another vehicle sued passenger of the other vehicle, among others, seeking a declaration that passenger was not entitled to coverage under the policy based on the determination in insurer's prior action against various other defendants that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify those defendants; passenger counterclaimed. The trial court denied insurer's motion to dismiss passenger's counterclaim and entered a default against insurer. Affirming, this court held, among other things, that passenger's counterclaim against insurer was not barred by res judicata arising from the prior action, because, among other things, insurer failed to show that there was privity between passenger and any of the defendants in the prior action within the meaning of the Restatement Second of Judgments. Direct Auto Insurance Company v. Bahena, 131 N.E.3d 1094, 1110. CHAPTER 2. VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS TOPIC 1. NOTICE § 3. Irregularity of Notice COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America -- wFor earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most