finding no privity between police officer and state in criminal case thus officer was not precluded
Summary of this case from Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.93-3603.
July 26, 1994.
Appeal from S.D.Ohio.
Decisions Without Published Opinions Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part.
finding no privity between police officer and state in criminal case thus officer was not precluded
Summary of this case from Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.applying Ohio law
Summary of this case from Estep v. CombsIn Wallace v. Mamula, 30 F.3d 135, 1995 WL 389197 (6th Cir. 1994), the Court held that a defendant police officer in a civil rights lawsuit was not in privity with the State of Ohio in a prior state criminal action.
Summary of this case from Brandon v. Cnty. of MuskingumFull title:Wallace v. Mamula
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Date published: Jul 26, 1994
This court has twice rejected an attempt to use collateral estoppel offensively against a defendant officer…
Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.See, Abdulsalaam v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 637 F.Supp.2d 561, 587 (S.D.Ohio 2009) (finding a social…