court also did not err in granting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying the appellants’ motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the district court’s orders are AFFIRMED. 1 . Unlike federal courts, Florida courts continue to require the mutuality of parties in deciding whether to give preclusive effect to a prior civil judgment. See Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla.1984) ("[T]he well established rule in Florida has been and continues to be that collateral estoppel may be asserted only when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies.”). Florida law does not require the mutuality of parties for criminal judgments. See Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064, 1067 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The Florida judgment did not (and could
recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict holding that judgments rendered by courts not having authority to enter such are not subject to collateral attack because judges entering those judgments were de facto officers recognizing that romano was superseded as to criminal judgments by florida statutes chapter 77214 holding that cr 60b applies to criminal as well as civil judgments