Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MSM v. Zurich, 97-1484 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1484 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 18, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: and Boudin, Circuit Judge.Jordan Lewis Ring, with whom Philipp G. Grefe, David R., __________________ _________________ ________, Jackowitz and Ring Grefe, P.C.properly resolved by the district court.binding in the present federal court action.was made by the appellants in this case.
USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________

No. 97-1484

MSM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
[Hon. Zachary R. Karol, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

_____________________

Jordan Lewis Ring, with whom Philipp G. Grefe, David R. __________________ _________________ ________
Jackowitz and Ring & Grefe, P.C. were on brief for appellants. _________ __________________
Frederick W. Stein, with whom Laurence H. Reece, Jeffrey ___________________ __________________ _______
Levy, Heidlage & Reece, P.C., Steven D. Pearson and Bates Meckler ____ ______________________ _________________ _____________
Bulger & Tilson were on brief for appellee. _______________



____________________

September 18, 1997
____________________















Per Curiam. After a full review of the record, briefs, Per Curiam. __________

and arguments of counsel, we are satisfied that the matter was

properly resolved by the district court. The doctrine of

collateral estoppel or issue preclusion made the earlier

Massachusetts state court determination against appellants

binding in the present federal court action. See 28 U.S.C. ___

1738. Massachusetts may follow the Restatement of Judgments, _________________________

28(5)(c) (1982), in recognizing a limited exception where the

party opposing collateral estoppel makes a clear and convincing

showing that it was deprived of the opportunity to obtain a full

and fair adjudication in the earlier case, but no such showing

was made by the appellants in this case. Accordingly, we do not

reach appellants' other claims of error which, as both sides

agree, are of no importance once collateral estoppel is found to

apply.

Affirmed. Affirmed. ________






















-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer