Appeal & Preclusion Flashcards
claim preclusion (res judicata) - what is it; 3 requirements; terminology
rule: claimant may sue only once to vindicate a claim
claim preclusion (res judicata) bars litigation of all claims that WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN litigated in the original action under the original claim >>> fed and state courts will use reciprocity both ways!
Requirements:
(1) same claimant vs same defendant (**can’t switch sides!)
»> or someone in privity!
(2) valid, final judgment on the merits (i.e. CANNOT be dismissal based on jurisdiction, venue, or failure to join party or voluntary dismissal, or a SETTLEMENT), AND
(3) same CLAIM (i.e. show by SAME T/O - so one lawsuit for each real world event)
»» **claim, not defense!
**always look for claim preclusion first because it is more broad
plaintiff’s claim is said to “merge* in to the prior judgment if he won; if plaintiff lost, his claim will be barred by the prior judgment
appeal - final judgment rule (rule; 2 situations commonly tested where there is clearly no final judgment; 2 common exceptions)
general rule: the losing party has a right to appeal if the court’s order is a final judgment - i.e. one that determines the merits of the ENTIRE case
so ask yourself - “does the trial court have anything left to do on the merits of the case?”
**denial of a MSJ is NOT GROUNDS for appeal - b/c you should instead just head straight to trial!
**granting of motion for NT is NOT GROUNDS for appeal
2 common exceptions: appeal of orders granting/denying PIs (appealable as of right) and certifications of class actions (appealable at COA’s discretion)
appeal - notice of appeal (where to file; timing)
if the judgment is final, the notice of appeal must be filed with the DISTRICT court within 30 days after entry of judgment
appeal - TROs and PIs
PIs (essentially order granting/denying/or modifying them) can be appealed AS OF RIGHT
»> need not get permission from TC or consent from COA
TROs are NOT appealable
»> however, a TRO that goes beyond 28 days becomes a PI!
appeal - interlocutory appeal
allows appeal of a NONfinal order ONLY IF:
- district judge certifies that it involves a controlling issue of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, AND
- the COA agrees to hear it
(**distinguish from appeals of denials of injunctions, which are always allowed)
appeal - final judgments and multiple claims/parties
when more than one claim is presented in a case, or when there are multiple parties, the DC may expressly direct entry of a FINAL judgment as to one or more of them IF it makes an EXPRESS FINDING THAT THERE IS NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY
**i.e. not automatically appealable - we look to the district court’s discretion
appeal - standards of review
questions of law
questions of fact (bench vs jury trial)
mixed questions of law/fact
discretionary matters (and fallback if not properly preserved)
questions of law - de novo (no deference)
»> ex) whether correct law/standards were applied; review of a JNOV
questions of fact in a BENCH trial - affirm unless clearly erroneous (lots of deference)
questions of fact in a JURY trial - affirm unless reasonable people could not have made that finding (most deference)
mixed questions of fact: de novo
»> It is often difficult to determine whether the question is purely factual, purely legal, or mixed. Generally speaking, whether a set of facts meets a legal definition is considered to be a mixed question of law and fact.
discretionary matters (motions, evidentiary rulings, whether to give jury instruction, denial of motion for NT, denial of a mtn for relief from judgment): abuse of discretion standard >>> **but if the party does not property preserve the issue for appeal, it will be WAIVED
**remember, no reversal if it was a “harmless error”!
preclusion - choice of law
court 2 will apply the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided case 1
issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) - general rule & requirements
premise: if an issue was litigated in case 1, and the same issue is presented in case 2, the issue cannot be relitigated (it is deemed established)
issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) resolves only those issues that were ACTUALLY litigated
Requirements:
(1) valid, final judgment on the merits (i.e. cannot be dismissal based on jurisdiction, venue, or failure to join party, or SETTLEMENT)
(2) same issue ACTUALLY litigated and determined in case 1, AND
(3) issue was ESSENTIAL to judgment in case 1 (i.e. was the basis for judgment)
**narrower than claim preclusion, so look to claim preclusion first
issue preclusion - BY whom may it be used
BY WHOM: generally, someone who was a party to case 1 or in privity with a party
EXCEPTION - NONMUTUAL issue preclusion: when someone who was not a party to case 1 tries to use issue preclusion in case 2. two types:
- defensive: you were not in case 1, and you are the DEFENDANT in case 2
»> use 3 IP factors, then ask is this issue being asserted AGAINST someone who was a party to case 1?
»> this is okay, so long as that guy had a full chance to litigate in case 1 - offensive: you were not in case 1 and you are the PLAINTIFF in case 2
»> use 3 IP factors, then ask is this issue being asserted AGAINST someone who was a party to case 1?
»> originally you could not do this at all, but now courts will assess whether the suit is otherwise fair and equitable
issue preclusion - AGAINST whom may it be used
AGAINST WHOM: ONLY someone who was a party to case 1 or in privity with a party
claim preclusion - Even when all of the elements of claim preclusion are satisfied, courts will nevertheless refuse to apply the doctrine when: (5 reasons)
o (a) the parties have AGREED in terms or in effect that π may split his claim, or ∆ has acquiesced therein,
o (b) the court in the first action has EXPRESSLY RESERVED π’s right to maintain a second action,
o (c) π was unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of the limitations on the SMJ of the court
»> **π must have actually tried to bring those claims
o (d) the judgment in the first action was PLAINLY INCONSISTENT with the fair and equitable implementation of a statutory or constitutional scheme, or it is the sense of the scheme that π should be permitted to split his claim, oR
o (e) it is clearly and convincingly shown that the policies favoring preclusion of a second action are overcome for an EXTRAORDINARY REASON, such as the apparent invalidity of a continuing restraint or condition having a vital relation to personal liberty or the failure of the prior litigation to yield a coherent disposition of the controversy
appeals - certifications of class actions
> > > an order granting or denying class certification is IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE within FOURTEEN days of entry (at the COA’s DISCRETION)
