From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CENTRAL PENN. TEAMSTERS v. FREYS MOTOR EXP

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 10, 1994
37 F.3d 1486 (3d Cir. 1994)

Summary

holding that when a plaintiff proceeds to trial and obtains a conclusive determination with respect to damages, a future defendant, such as an underinsured motorist insurer, has the option of offensively asserting the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent a plaintiff litigating the issue again

Summary of this case from Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC (In re Process Am., Inc.)

Opinion

No. 94-1214.

August 10, 1994.

E.D.Pa., Buckwalter, J.


DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

CENTRAL PENN. TEAMSTERS v. FREYS MOTOR EXP

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Aug 10, 1994
37 F.3d 1486 (3d Cir. 1994)

holding that when a plaintiff proceeds to trial and obtains a conclusive determination with respect to damages, a future defendant, such as an underinsured motorist insurer, has the option of offensively asserting the doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent a plaintiff litigating the issue again

Summary of this case from Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC (In re Process Am., Inc.)
Case details for

CENTRAL PENN. TEAMSTERS v. FREYS MOTOR EXP

Case Details

Full title:Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund v. Freys Motor Express, Inc

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Aug 10, 1994

Citations

37 F.3d 1486 (3d Cir. 1994)

Citing Cases

Timko v. Traugh

Withrow v. Spears, 967 F.Supp.2d 982, 998-99 (D.Del. 2013); see, e.g.,Suter v. Gen.Accident Ins. Co. of Am.,…

Snow v. Standard Ins. Co.

That the application of those criteria was not an abuse of discretion can hardly be doubted. See Mitchell v.…