Cited by

(citing Rule 404(b) in reversing judgment for defendant in legal malpractice case based on improper admission of evidence of plaintiff’s unrelated prior misconduct).

¶ 46 (App. 1998); ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (explaining we presume that the court knows and applies the correct law unless that presumption is rebutted by the record).

¶ 18 (App. 1998) (“[A] party will not be allowed to complain of the introduction of irrelevant evidence where he has asserted a position that makes such evidence relevant.”).

evidence will generally be considered as having been waived”); ¶ 18 (App. 1998) (“[A] party will not be allowed 4 STATE v. FREENY Decision of the Court to complain of the introduction of irrelevant evidence where he has asserted a position that makes such evidence relevant.”).

Ct. App. Div. 1999) (“New Jersey follows the Restatement (Second) of Judgments respecting collateral estoppel.” (citations omitted)); ¶¶ 33–34 (App. 1998) (noting that, in applying issue preclusion, “this court generally follows the Restatement whenever applicable” (citation omitted)).

103(a); ¶ 22 (App. 1998).

In support of such a rule, Bond Counsel cites Elia v. Pifer , , a case that predates our supreme court's adoption of the Hearn test.

Berry v. Superior Court (Martone), ¶ 30 (App. 1998).

¶ 30 (App. 1998); Berry v. Super.

(“[A] party will not be allowed to complain of the introduction of irrelevant evidence where he has asserted a position that makes such evidence relevant.”) (citing Morris K. Udall et.

of Maricopa, ¶ 8 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 40 (App. 1998)).

¶18 In considering whether collateral estoppel applies, a final judgment is “any prior adjudication of an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.” ¶ 33, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 (1982)).

Instead, a “special action petition is the appropriate method to challenge a civil contempt order.” ¶ 7, ¶ 30, (“[I]t has long been held that [a] contempt order is reviewable in appropriate circumstances by special action, but not by way of appeal.”).

42 ¶ 18 , (“[A] party will not be allowed to complain of the introduction of irrelevant evidence where he has asserted a position that makes such evidence relevant.” (citation omitted)).

Co., ¶ 28 , ( ¶ 22 , ) (appellate court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion).

4 See Schalkenbach Found., v. Lincoln Found., Inc., -81, ¶¶ 18-20 , -24 (App.2004); -81, ¶¶ 32-34 , -03 (App.1998) (holding availability of special action review rendered a contempt order sufficiently final to be accorded preclusive effect in a subsequent action).

Restatement § 28; ¶ 34 , (applying Restatement in the absence of contrary case law).

¶ 33 , Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 13 cmt.