No. 32286 - Jennifer
Holloman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Starcher, J., concurring:
the doctrine of collateral estoppel _ also called the doctrine of issue preclusion
_ once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a
different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation. Montana
v. United States
, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979).
Collateral estoppel has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the
burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and
of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation. Parklane
Hosiery Co. v. Shore
, 439 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979).
It is well-settled that a litigant who was not a party to a prior judgment
may nevertheless use that judgment 'offensively' to prevent a defendant from
relitigating issues resolved in the earlier proceeding. Parklane
439 U.S. at 326.
separately to clarify that the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be used by
a litigant in a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, W.Va. Code,
33-11-1 to -10, and even to establish a general business practice under W.Va.
Code, 33-11-4(9). However, the litigant must meet the four conditions set
forth in Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d