Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantlitigationattorneyappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentmalpracticelegal malpracticepiracy
defendantlitigationappealtrialpiracy

Related Cases

Rizzo v. Haines, 520 Pa. 484, 555 A.2d 58, 90 A.L.R.4th 1007, 57 USLW 2578
View Case »
Sliech-Brodeur v. Com., 447 Mass. 1004, 849 N.E.2d 806
View Case »
Aloy v. Mash, 38 Cal.3d 413, 696 P.2d 656, 212 Cal.Rptr. 162, 53 USLW 2497, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. 1436
View Case »
Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626
View Case »
Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392

Facts

Joseph Ward, a Fort Lauderdale policeman, was charged and convicted of conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed a motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. Ward then brought a legal malpractice suit against his attorney, Howard M. Zeidwig, alleging that Zeidwig failed to listen to a tape that could have exonerated him. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Zeidwig, citing collateral estoppel as a basis for its decision.

Joseph Ward, a Fort Lauderdale policeman, was charged and convicted of conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana.

Issue

Whether identity or mutuality of the parties or their privies is a prerequisite in Florida to the defensive application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the criminal-to-civil context.

Whether identity or mutuality of the parties or their privies is a prerequisite in Florida to the defensive application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the criminal-to-civil context.

Rule

The court ruled that mutuality of parties is not a prerequisite for the defensive application of collateral estoppel in the criminal-to-civil context, allowing a defendant to use collateral estoppel defensively to prevent relitigation of issues previously decided in criminal proceedings.

The court ruled that mutuality of parties is not a prerequisite for the defensive application of collateral estoppel in the criminal-to-civil context, allowing a defendant to use collateral estoppel defensively to prevent relitigation of issues previously decided in criminal proceedings.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that Ward had a full and fair opportunity to present his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the prior criminal proceedings. Since the issue had been litigated and decided against him, the court found that allowing him to relitigate the same issue in a civil malpractice action would undermine the judicial system's integrity.

The court applied the rule by determining that Ward had a full and fair opportunity to present his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the prior criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the District Court of Appeal and remanded the case with directions to affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of Zeidwig.

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the District Court of Appeal and remanded the case with directions to affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of Zeidwig.

Who won?

Howard M. Zeidwig prevailed in the case because the court found that Ward was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, which had already been decided in his prior criminal proceedings.

Howard M. Zeidwig prevailed in the case because the court found that Ward was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.

You must be