New Hampshire
How Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Civil Procedure (Collateral Estoppel/Issue Preclusion) and Patent Law.
New Hampshire recognizes the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, aligning largely with the principles set forth in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories. This means that a party cannot relitigate an issue that has already been judged in a prior proceeding where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
In New Hampshire, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been decided in the prior action, it must be the same issue in both actions, the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a party in the prior action, and the prior action must have resulted in a judgment.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that issue preclusion barred relitigation of the employee's status once determined in a prior adjudication.
The state court affirmed that essential elements for issue preclusion were met when the same issue was previously adjudicated with a final judgment.
This case affirmed the application of issue preclusion in civil matters where the identical issues were previously litigated.
New Hampshire follows a similar framework to the federal standard regarding collateral estoppel, which requires that the prior adjudication must be final, with the same issue being litigated. However, New Hampshire may place additional emphasis on the fairness of the opportunity for parties to present their case in the prior action, reflecting state-specific procedural values.
Understanding the principles of collateral estoppel as established in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories is critical for New Hampshire bar exam candidates, particularly in the areas of Civil Procedure and Intellectual Property.