Joe Richman builds a helicopter-landing pad on his large estate. He builds the pad not knowing that the Town his lives in (Town Nowhere) has an ordinance that prohibits private aircrafts from flying. When he learns he is not allowed to fly his expensive helicopter around town, he files a lawsuit against the Town of Nowhere.
Richman files his lawsuit in Federal District court against the Town of Nowhere alleging that the Town ordinance violates his equal protection rights under the 1stand 14thAmendment. The District Court Judge throws the case out via Summary Judgment, finding that the ordinance is facially valid and that Richman failed to present any evidence to support his allegations.
Richman is not happy with the decision, so he files a second claim: he files an amended complaint, which alleges the same facts in the original complaint, but he adds new information:
-he names a specific defendant, public works commissioner Brown. He alleged Brown used his position to coerce two of Richman’s neighbors to complain about him. He also alleges that Brown used his position to induce a couple to write a disparaging editorial in the local newspaper about him.
-he also alleges defamation of character by the Town, and
-discrimination by the Town based on his Italian-American heritage.
Is the second claim barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata???
Question 2 – Collateral Estoppel. 250+ words Bluebook citation
Pick one of these Supreme Court cases and tell us about it, and how the concept of collateral estoppel is involved. What does the Court say about collateral estoppel in your case? Does it make sense to you?
Originally posted 2016-11-01 01:48:10. Republished by Blog Post Promoter