Court Opinion

ID: 9728931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:19:21.624655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:53.108306
License: Public Domain

WOODWORTH, J.*
I concur in the majority opinion only out of deference to other decisions in Pawlowski v. Pierce (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 692 [249 Cal.Rptr. 49] and Lofthouse v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 730 [177 Cal.Rptr. 601]. Those cases convincingly establish that there is no privity between the Department of Motor Vehicles and the district attorney as required for collateral estoppel to apply. The Skinner and Reed cases are inapposite. Unlike those cases, there was here an essential factual finding by the municipal court that plaintiff completed a chemical test. That court thereupon dismissed (i.e., adjudicated) the enhancement allegation. Hence privity is the only missing element of collateral estoppel.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.