You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Resolution Trust Corporation v. Edwin H. Hawes, James R. Malone, and Robert B. Riss, and Robin Buerge J. Lawrence Mills Edward L. Jacoby W.R. Hagstrom Keith R. Gollust and Paul E. Tierney, Jr.

Citations: 52 F.3d 338; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18242; 1995 WL 225235Docket: 94-5189

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; April 11, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case examines an appeal involving the Resolution Trust Corporation, the plaintiff-appellee, against multiple defendants, adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The primary issue concerned the application of legal precedent from a similar case, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Frates, which guided the appellate court's decision to reverse the lower court's judgment. The case was overseen by Circuit Judges Moore and Brorby, along with Senior District Judge Alsop, who was sitting by designation. Despite the reversal, the court emphasized that this order and judgment are not binding precedent but may be referenced under specific legal doctrines such as law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court's decision highlights the nuanced application of precedent and the circumstances under which non-binding judgments may still be cited. This judgment, while influential in guiding the outcome, remains subject to the rules outlined in a General Order from November 29, 1993, regarding the citation of non-binding orders and judgments.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Precedent in Reversing Judgment

Application: The court applied precedent from a similar case, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Frates, to reverse the judgment in this case.

Reasoning: The court issued an order and judgment on April 11, 1995, stating that the case is governed by the precedent set in Resolution Trust Corp. v. Frates, which had a similar case number. The judgment in this case was reversed.

Precedential Value of Court Orders and Judgments

Application: The court clarified that the order and judgment in this case are not binding precedent but can be cited under specific doctrines.

Reasoning: Although this order and judgment is not considered binding precedent, it may be cited under specific legal doctrines such as law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.