[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Michelle Parikh
Date: 09 May 2002
Time: 10:24:37
In Hart, should the 2nd court have applied nonmutual collateral estoppel to all of the plaintiffs through federal law (Parklane), or should they have looked to the TX state law and disallowed nonmutual collateral estoppel to all of the plaintiffs because of TX's mutuality of estoppel rule? Generally, with regard to nonmutual collateral estoppel, does the federal court have its own rules, or does the federal court look to the state court's law?