240 (Mo. banc 2006); see also, State ex rel. Dally v. Copeland, 986 S.W.2d 943 (Mo.App.1999); State ex rel. State v. Campbell, 936 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App.1996). Thus a court might hold that a prior legitimation or adjudication conclusively establishes paternity for purposes of a criminal nonsupport prosecution. For three reasons, I believe this interpretation is in error. First, this reading of the statute renders it unconstitutional. In effect, a defendant is collaterally estopped from presenting his defense of a lack of paternity. And the law holds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply if the burden of proof is greater in a later proceeding. Restatement (Second) of Judgments section 28 at 273 (1982); see also, State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250, 254-5 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Making a “judgment in a civil action
recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct holding that previous judgments in civil paternity actions were not binding under doctrine of collateral estoppel in a later criminal nonsupport prosecution holding that a fact established by a criminal judgment was to be given conclusive effect under collateral estoppel doctrine holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 usc  1983