Opinion ID: 204666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence and Findings in Firishchak I

Text: Firishchak argues at length that the evidence in the denaturalization case was insufficient and that the district court ignored the applicable burden of proof. As Firishchak's brief maintains, This case was always and still is all about the gross insufficiency of the evidence under the applicable burden of proof. We respectfully disagree: Firishchak's argument amounts to a contention that collateral estoppel should not apply because the first case was wrongly decided. The possibility that a prior action could result in the wrong outcome is a reason, as a matter of first principles, why one may not want courts to recognize the doctrine at all. Wright, Miller, & Cooper, supra, § 4416, at 398 (noting that the dangers of issue preclusion are as apparent as its virtues). Yet, whenever principles compete with one anotherfairness versus finality, certainty versus economythere are no right answers, only better ones. Courts recognize and apply collateral estoppel; Firishchak's efforts to relitigate the merits of the denaturalization case is precisely what the doctrine prevents.