JUDGMENTS-COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY A LOWER COURT JUDGMENT WHEN APPEAL THEREFROM IS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT

Authors

John C. Walker S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

The United States sued defendant in two counts for violation of OPA price regulations. The first count asked for an injunction to restrain further violations while the second sought treble damages for past violations. By agreement of the parties the injunction issue was tried first. The trial court found that there had been no violation of price regulations and dismissed the bill. This phase of the case was appealed by the government as a final order. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the injunction issue had become moot, the particular commodity having been decontrolled in the interim. The government then sought to prosecute its claim for damages under the second count. Held, the trial court's determination in the injunction branch of the case that there had been no violation of price regulations was conclusive as against the government. It was a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction of an essential issue actually litigated between the same parties. One judge dissented. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., (8th Cir. 1949) 178 F. (2d) 204.

Recommended Citation

John C. Walker S.Ed., JUDGMENTS-COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY A LOWER COURT JUDGMENT WHEN APPEAL THEREFROM IS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT, 48 Mich. L. Rev. 1208 (1950).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol48/iss8/22