concluding that incentive was not a persuasive factor against applying issue preclusion even though, in the first proceeding, the defendant "only faced possible sanctions against his Coast Guard license, whereas in [the subsequent proceeding] he face[d] potential liability of $40,000"
Summary of this case from Barackman v. AndersonMarch 18, 1980.
concluding that incentive was not a persuasive factor against applying issue preclusion even though, in the first proceeding, the defendant "only faced possible sanctions against his Coast Guard license, whereas in [the subsequent proceeding] he face[d] potential liability of $40,000"
Summary of this case from Barackman v. AndersonFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Mar 18, 1980
In order for collateral estoppel to apply, there must be an identity of issues between the two proceedings.…
Vossen v. ForresterWe conclude that plaintiffs were chargeable with full knowledge of all of the relevant facts by mid-1994 at…