The doctrine of collateral estoppel or the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a municipality from re-litigating factual determinations resolved in the petitioner's favor during prior criminal and civil traffic proceedings when those determinations are central to a subsequent civil negligence action?

2. Whether repeated warrantless seizures and the final taking of a vehicle after multiple dismissals or acquittals raise a federal question under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

3. Whether a vehicle previously recognized by state courts as exempt under state law may be subjected to renewed seizures and a taking without implicating federal constitutional limits?

4. Whether continued withholding of a vehicle following dismissal or acquittal of all related charges, without a prompt post-seizure hearing, satisfies due process requirements?

5. Whether a state supreme court's refusal to review an unelaborated per curiam affirmance prevents meaningful consideration of federal questions that were properly raised and preserved?

6. Whether a summary judgment order that provides no findings and does not address judicially noticed facts satisfies the minimum procedural protections required by the Due Process Clause?

Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel or the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes re-litigation of factual determinations resolved in prior proceedings when central to a subsequent civil negligence action