Collateral Estoppel and the Right to a Jury Trial: Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 565 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 46 U.S.L.W. 3674-75 (U.S. May 2, 1978) (No. 77-1305)

Authors

Charles L. Finke, University of Nebraska College of LawFollow

Abstract

Determining when the United States Constitution requires a jury trial in civil actions involves the analysis of various policy considerations. Two considerations—a party's right to a jury trial and the use of collateral estoppel—have seemingly clashed in two federal courts of appeals decisions. This Note discusses the holding in Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co. and the reasons the second circuit felt Rachal v. Hill was wrongly decided. Finally, the effect of these two decisions on various policy considerations of both procedure and the security laws is examined.

I. Introduction

II. The Facts

III. The Decision of the Court of Appeals … A. Rachal v. Hill … B. The Policy Grounds … C. The Historical Grounds

IV. Analysis

V. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Charles L. Finke, Collateral Estoppel and the Right to a Jury Trial: Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 565 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. granted, 46 U.S.L.W. 3674-75 (U.S. May 2, 1978) (No. 77-1305), 57 Neb. L. Rev. 863 (1978)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol57/iss3/11