|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class)|
- courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel if the same plaintiff in a previous action is sued by a new defendant for the same issue.
Huh? Shouldn't this read the opposite, applying when a new plaintiff sues the same defendant for the same issue? It makes more sense that a defendant would be sued twice for an issue than that a plaintiff would win on the issue and then get sued by someone else (who would, anyway, then be the plaintiff in the new action). Ari 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that statement's misleading; typically defendants don't sue plaintiffs (except counterclaims, but that's not what's going on here). It'd be clearer to say "claimant" v "respondent".LH 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I am deleting a sentence that says that the judgment of a court that lacked subject matter jurisdiction cannot be collaterally attacked. My understanding is that if it is clear that the earlier court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, such collateral attack is allowed. If you believe the law supports the retracted statement, cite a case in the article. --Hlsgrad 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Entirely US-centric. Perhaps the term "collateral estoppel" is a specific US term, but the principle of preclusion is found in other legal systems. At the very least it should be made clear that this applies in the American legal system, rather than simply be implied. --Rhombus (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)