a mutual understanding of and concerted action by the parties. A judgment entered upon the stipulation of the parties is a judgment by consent.” Right to appellate review of consent judgments, American Law Reports, 69 A.L.R.2d 755 (1960). 54 . Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 comment, (e). 55 . La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A. de C. V., 914 F.2d 900, 906 (7th Cir.1990) (citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)). 56 . Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414, 120 S.Ct. 2304, 1 e C. v., 914 F.2d 900 (7th Cir. 1990) (recognizing the general rule forbidding the application of collateral estoppel to consent judgments especially when the judgment lacks clarity); Hughes v. Santa Fe Int'l Corp., 847 F.2d 239 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Levinson v. U.S., 969 F.2d 260, 264 (7th Cir.
holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent holding to the same effect holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect holding that settlement agreements like consent judgments are not given preclusive effect unless the parties manifest their intent to give them such effect recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack