Sentences with phrase «by collateral estoppel»

In a suit by the stepson against the landlord, the stepson probably can apply the ruling in the stepfather's case against the landlord in a binding way by collateral estoppel, although the landlord probably can't hold the stepson to rulings made against the stepfather in the same suit.

Not exact matches

Team, Ltd., 88 NY2d 628 [establishing landlords» regulatory liability for childhood lead poisoning under NYC Local Law 1], Munoz v. Puretz 301 AD2d 382 [liability of landlord for prenatal exposure to lead based paint suffered by the unborn child of a tenant], Zaman v. Patwary 295 AD2d 424 [notice of child under Local Law 1], Perez v. New York City Housing Authority, 304 AD2d 736 [collateral estoppel effect of DOH lead paint violations] and has obtained for his clients millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements.

The arbitrator granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, finding that: (1) CHSI was not a proper respondent to the action and that Weirton failed to state claims against CHSI; (2) all of Weirton's claims, except for the breach - of - contract claim against Quorum, were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (3) Weirton's breach - of - contract claim against Quorum was time - barred under the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations; (4) Weirton's tort claims were alternatively barred by the gist - of - the - action doctrine; and (5) Weirton's unjust enrichment claim was barred because of the parties» contracts (the «Second Award»).

Weirton argued that this manifest disregard occurred in connection with (1) the arbitrator's disposal of the case on summary disposition; (2) the arbitrator's determination that all claims but one were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (3) the arbitrator's conclusion that one of Weirton's claims was barred by the statute of limitations; and (4) the arbitrator's determination that, if not barred by res judicata, a number of Weirton's claims were barred by the gist - of - the action doctrine.

By Opinion dated October 24, 2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed a prior trial court victory achieved by the Lipson, Neilson team in obtaining summary dismissal of a legal malpractice claim on the ground of collateral estoppeBy Opinion dated October 24, 2017, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed a prior trial court victory achieved by the Lipson, Neilson team in obtaining summary dismissal of a legal malpractice claim on the ground of collateral estoppeby the Lipson, Neilson team in obtaining summary dismissal of a legal malpractice claim on the ground of collateral estoppel.