Fuller v. General Motors Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fuller v. General Motors Corp.

394 So. 2d 491, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19555

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1981

DocketNo. 80-697

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 394 So. 2d 491 (Fuller v. General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 394 So. 2d 491, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19555 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review, which was entered in favor of the defendant General Motors Corporation based on a jury verdict after trial below, is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) “[collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment, is a judicial doctrine which in general terms prevents identical parties from relitigating issues that have previously been decided between them,” and has, as one of its essential elements, the requirement that “[t]he parties ... be identical.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla.1978); (b) the judicial doctrine of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment is totally inapplicable to this case because the defendant General Motors Corporation was not a party to the prior final summary judgment entered in favor of the co-defendant herein, see Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 832 (Fla.1978), and was in no sense bound thereby; and (c) the trial court was, accordingly, correct in allowing the defendant General Motors Corporation to litigate at trial below the issue of the alleged defective brakes in this products liability action.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review, which was entered in favor of the defendant General Motors Corporation based on a jury verdict after trial below, is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) “[collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment, is a judicial doctrine which in general terms prevents identical parties from relitigating issues that have previously been decided between them,” and has, as one of its essential elements, the requirement that “[t]he parties ... be identical.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372, 374 (Fla.1978); (b) the judicial doctrine of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment is totally inapplicable to this case because the defendant General Motors Corporation was not a party to the prior final summary judgment entered in favor of the co-defendant herein, see Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 832 (Fla.1978), and was in no sense bound thereby; and (c) the trial court was, accordingly, correct in allowing the defendant General Motors Corporation to litigate at trial below the issue of the alleged defective brakes in this products liability action.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 So. 2d 491, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-general-motors-corp-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack