Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

California law is instructive. In order to have an issue-preclusive effect in a later judicial action in California, an arbitration must have been conducted with certain procedural safeguards. As the California Supreme Court recently explained: Whether collateral estoppel is fair and consistent with public policy in a particular case depends in part upon the character of the forum that first decided the issue later sought to be foreclosed. In this regard, courts consider the judicial nature of the prior forum, i.e., its legal formality, the scope of its jurisdiction, and its procedural safeguards, particularly including the opportunity for judicial review of adverse rulings. Vandenberg, 982 P.2d at 237. The California Courts of Appeal have similarly noted that it is 'appropriate to give collateral estoppel effect to findings made during an arbitration, so long as the arbitration had the elements of an adjudicatory procedure.' Kelly v. Vons Cos., 67 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 763, 767 (Ct. App. 1998) (emphasis added); see also Camargo v. Cal. Portland Cement Co., 86 Cal. App. 4th 995, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 853 (Ct. App. 2001) ('Collateral estoppel is appropriately applied to arbitration as a matter of policy ...

Register or login to access full content