Randeep S. Mann and John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and John Doe #3, Appellants v. Trent P. Pierce and Mel — Hart, J…

Summary

Justice Hart's dissent argues that offensive collateral estoppel requires identity of the issues actually litigated and that the majority improperly broadened that doctrine. She contends that Mann's federal conviction did not necessarily establish the apprehension and harmful-or-offensive-contact elements required for the state-law torts of assault and battery, so those issues should have been resolved by a state-court fact-finder. Justice Wood, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would not have addressed the notice-of-appeal issue sua sponte, while Justice Goodson, concurring, supports resolving that issue to clarify that the notice's content requirements are not jurisdictional.