Selected Risks Insurance v. Dean

Decided 1987-04-24

Cited by 104 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

POFF, J., dissenting. I dissent from the majority’s holding. That is not to say that I advocate abandonment of the mutuality requirement of the collateral-estoppel doctrine. Rather, I believe that the requirement should be applied selectively and never ritualistically and that its application here is ill justified. The mutuality question arises in…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.