Name: Collateral Estoppel (en Inglés)
SKU: 62859989
Price: 801.30 MXN
Availability: InStock
Author: Landmark Publications
ISBN: 9781091683716

Formato

Libro Físico

Editorial

Independently Published

Autor

Landmark Publications

Idioma

Inglés

N° páginas

540

Encuadernación

Tapa Blanda

ISBN13

9781091683716

Collateral Estoppel (en Inglés)

Landmark Publications (Autor) · Independently Published · Tapa Blanda

Libro Nuevo Importado

Envío: 17 a 22 días háb.

$ 1,602.61$ 801.30

-50%

Costos de importación incluídos en el precio ✅

Libro Nuevo

Quedan más de 100 unidades

$ 801.30

¡Envío Gratis! Llega entre el 15 Sep y el 24 Sep a CUAUHTÉMOC, Ciudad de México. Seleccionar ubicación

Agregar a lista de deseos

Reseña del libro "Collateral Estoppel (en Inglés)"

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel. * * * "Collateral estoppel, sometimes called issue preclusion, bars parties from re-litigating issues of either fact or law that were adjudicated in an earlier proceeding" before a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. United States, 850 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2017); see Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Día, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 89 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48 (1897)). The doctrine serves the "dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation." Sutliffe v. Epping Sch. Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 329 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979)). As "issue preclusion prevent[s] relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones," a court charged with applying collateral estoppel ought not inquire into the correctness of the earlier determination of a precluded issue. Vargas-Colón v. Fundación Damas, Inc., 864 F.3d 14, 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 1308 (2015)) (alteration in original). Patton v. Johnson, (1st Cir. 2019)