25
Thurs. Nov. 21

Thurs. Nov. 21

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Thurs. Nov. 21. preclusive effect (res judicata). claim preclusion. scope of a claim. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Thurs. Nov. 21

Thurs. Nov. 21

Page 2: Thurs. Nov. 21

preclusive effect(res judicata)

Page 3: Thurs. Nov. 21

claim preclusion

Page 4: Thurs. Nov. 21

scope of a claim

Page 5: Thurs. Nov. 21

Rest. (2d) of Judgments§ 24. Dimensions Of “Claim” For Purposes Of Merger Or Bar—General Rule Concerning “Splitting”(1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiff's claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.(2) What factual grouping constitutes a “transaction”, and what groupings constitute a “series”, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.

Page 6: Thurs. Nov. 21

P sues D Railroad alleging that the conductor was negligent in starting the car while P was disembarking and that as a result P broke his arm. After judgment for P, P brings a new action against D alleging that after disembarking from the car he fell into a trench negligently left by D beside the road and broke his leg.

Page 7: Thurs. Nov. 21

“on the merits”

Page 8: Thurs. Nov. 21

§ 20. Judgment For Defendant—Exceptions To The General Rule Of Bar(1) A personal judgment for the defendant, although valid and final, does not bar another action by the plaintiff on the same claim:(a) When the judgment is one of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties; or(b) When the plaintiff agrees to or elects a nonsuit (or voluntary dismissal) without prejudice or the court directs that the plaintiff be nonsuited (or that the action be otherwise dismissed) without prejudice; or(c) When by statute or rule of court the judgment does not operate as a bar to another action on the same claim, or does not so operate unless the court specifies, and no such specification is made.

Page 9: Thurs. Nov. 21

(2) A valid and final personal judgment for the defendant, which rests on the prematurity of the action or on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy a precondition to suit, does not bar another action by the plaintiff instituted after the claim has matured, or the precondition has been satisfied, unless a second action is precluded by operation of the substantive law.

Page 10: Thurs. Nov. 21

issue preclusion

Page 11: Thurs. Nov. 21

If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided- litigated fairly and fully- and essential to the decisionthen the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier litigation

Page 12: Thurs. Nov. 21

Little v. Blue Goose Motor Coach(Ill. 1931)

Page 13: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp. every month for 2 years- D introduces the defense of fraud, on the ground that at the time they entered into the contract P lied to D about the C Corp.’s oil assets- D loses on that issue; judgment for PSubsequently D breaches the contract again- P sues D and D introduces two defenses: statute of frauds (the contract was not in writing) fraud (at the time that they entered into the contract, P lied to D about the C Corp.’s coal assets)- Is D issue precluded?

Page 14: Thurs. Nov. 21

Jacobson v. Miller (Mich. 1879)

Page 15: Thurs. Nov. 21

If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided- litigated fairly and fully- and essential to the decisionthen the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier litigation

Page 16: Thurs. Nov. 21

actually litigated and decided

Page 17: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P sues D for negligence- D introduces the affirmative defense of contributory negligence in his answer- At trial, no evidence for or against contributory negligence is offered by either side and the jury finds for P- Would D be issue precluded from relitigating P’s negligence?

Page 18: Thurs. Nov. 21

default judgment?

summary judgment?

consent judgment?

Page 19: Thurs. Nov. 21

essential to the judgment?

Page 20: Thurs. Nov. 21

Cambria v. Jeffery(Mass. 1940)

Page 21: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P sues D for interest on note- D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest- P wins

- P then sues for principal - D brings up fraud in execution of note- Is D issue precluded?

Page 22: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P sues D for interest on note- D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest- D wins on both grounds- P then sues for principal - D brings up fraud in execution of note- Is P issue precluded?

Page 23: Thurs. Nov. 21

P sues D for interest on note- D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest- D wins on both grounds- P then sues for subsequent interest- D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest- Is P issue precluded?

Page 24: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P and D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly- D breaches- P sues D in California- D argues that the contract is invalid, D loses on issue- D breaches again- P sues D in Nevada- D argues that the contract is invalid (P fails to mention issue preclusion), D wins on issue

- D breaches again- P sues D in California- Which determination has issue preclusive effect?

Page 25: Thurs. Nov. 21

- P and D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly- D breaches- P sues D in California- D argues that the contract is invalid, D loses on issue- D breaches again- P sues D in Nevada- D argues that the contract is invalid- P brings up issue preclusion, but the Nevada courts fail to give the Ca. determination FF&C- the USSCt does not take cert.- D wins on issue- D breaches again- P sues D in California- Which determination has issue preclusive effect?