Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — claim preclusion

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 2, 2013//

Civil Procedure — claim preclusion

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 2, 2013//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — claim preclusion

A ruling by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals precludes a lawsuit on the same matter in federal court.

“Free-wheeling as the Wisconsin courts’ formulation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is, none of its curlicues provide a basis for doubting that the rulings by the Wisconsin trial court and appellate court are entitled to collateral estoppel effect in this case. The only effect of the curlicues has been to inveigle DeGuelle into making frivolous arguments, such as that he should be given a break because he was pro se in the critical stage of the Wisconsin litigation, as he is in the present case. He was pro se by choice, as far as appears, rather than by reason of indigence. And the idea that litigating pro se should insulate a litigant from application of the collateral estoppel doctrine, or, more broadly, the doctrine of res judicata, of which collateral estoppel is an aspect, is absurd. See In re Tsamasfyros, 940 F.2d 605, 607 (10th Cir. 1991); Davis v. U.S. Steel Supply, 688 F.2d 166, 177 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc); Noble v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 693, 698 (2003). No doubt a judge might confuse a pro se litigant to the point of denying him an adequate hearing, but that didn’t happen in this case. The Wisconsin trial judge made clear to DeGuelle that he’d have to submit an affidavit countering the affidavit of the company’s tax expert in order to survive summary judgment. He had hired an expert who duly received the documents sought by DeGuelle in discovery. His refusal to allow his expert to file an affidavit, a refusal suggesting that the expert found no evidence of the alleged tax fraud, can’t be attributed to the judge.”

Affirmed.

12-2541 DeGuelle v. Camilli

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Posner, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests