Claim and Issue Preclusion

Question 1

When there has been a similar prior case (with same issues or parties), what 2 issues should you run thru? What order should you go in?

Answer 1

1. claim preclusion (if precluded, gets dismissed)

2. issue preclusion (if precluded, may just simplify issue in case)

Question 2

When you have Case 1 in a judicial system and Case 2 in a different judicial system and there may be a claim/issue preclusion issue, which law of preclusion do you apply?

Answer 2

Court of Case 2 applies preclusion law of court of Case 1

Question 3

What is claim preclusion? (res judicata)

Answer 3

P may only sue once to vindicate claim. If claim has already been decided, then will be precluded. Claim is precluded if:
1. same claimant suing same D in both Case 1 and 2
2. Case 1 had a valid, final judgment on the merits (i.e. did not say “without prejudice”)
NOT on merits if: based on lack of jdx, improper venue, or failure to join party
3. Case 1 and 2 must assert the same claim
- majority view: any right to relief arising from same T/O
- minority view: primary rights doctrine = separate claims for property damage and personal injuries that arise from same T/O

Question 4

What is issue preclusion? (collateral estoppel) (5 reqs), 2 types?

Answer 4

An issue from Case 1 will be precluded from being relitigated in Case 2 if: (Note this is narrower than claim preclusion, so has to be specific issue re same T/O)

1. case 1 ended in valid, final judgment on merits
2. same issue was actually litigated and determined in case 1
3. issue was essential to judgment in case 1
4. preclusion may only be used against someone who was party in case 1 or in privity with case 1 party (i.e. someone rep’d by a party in case 1)
5. preclusion may only be used by:
   (a) someone who was party/in privity with party in case 1 -ALWAYS OK
   (b) nonmutual defensive issue preclusion: person NOT party in case 1, is D in case 2 – federal & most stated say OK as long as party you’re using it against had full chance to litigate in Case 1
   (c) nonmutual offensive issue preclusion: person was NOT party in case 1, is P in case 2 - USUALLY NOT OK
   - consider fairness factors to see if nonmutual offensive is OK: did party to be bound had full and fair opportunity to litigate case 1, party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate case 1, party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined case 1, no inconsistent findings on issue (if had, then not as fair to get preclusion on issue)

Question 5

What are 4 fairness factors courts consider in assessing whether nonmutual offensive issue preclusion is allowed?

Answer 5

did party to be bound had full and fair opportunity to litigate case 1,

party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate case 1,

party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined case 1,

no inconsistent findings on issue (if had, then not as fair to get preclusion on issue)