Requirement {¶ 35} As to mutuality, there is to be sure some recent case law in Ohio declining to use a criminal conviction to bind a defendant in a subsequent civil case based solely upon his prior criminal conviction. E.g., Phillips v. Rayburn (4th Dist.1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 374, 381, 680 N.E.2d 1279, followed in Bukowski v. Hall (N.D.Ohio 2001), 165 F.Supp.2d 674, 679. Those decisions are inapposite. The issue here is not the offensive use of issue preclusion against Blackwell merely because he was convicted, but the reverse — the defensive use of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion — that Blackwell should be precluded from contesting issues squarely litigated and resolved against him in his federal trial. See Nye, supra, 165 Ohio App.3d 502, 2006-Ohio-948, 847 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 13 (<HOLDING>). In Ohio, there no longer is any general
holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it holding that the concept of collateral estoppel cannot apply when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in the earlier case holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication