Direct estoppel also prevents untried claims dismissed on pre-trial motions from being litigated in an appeal.
[8] Collateral estoppel is a doctrine that precludes a party from bringing an issue if a determination of law or fact was already made.
For example, in Peare v. Griggss, the appellate court reversed a judgment awarded to a widow-plaintiff because the direct estoppel doctrine prevented the plaintiff from receiving damages arising out of the same controversy.
The appellate court explained that even though the cause of actions were filled in different states, they were based on the same facts and there was a common element, the negligence of the deceased husband of the plaintiff.
Halpern claimed that Schwartz had transferred valuable bonds and mortgages to her son with the goal to defraud her creditors.
The court ultimately held that when a prior judgment was passed on three independent grounds, collateral estoppel could not give effect to the bankruptcy proceedings.
[13] Direct estoppel can be a tool for defendants to prevent the government from using counts decided already to support a different prosecution.
[16] The decision of the court exemplifies that direct estoppel can prevent a party from bringing the same claim regardless of the procedural vehicle used.