Pg 36 Flashcards
What is involved in the element for res judicata that asks for the final judgement to be made on the merits?
The verdict must have happened on the merits, which means based on the substance. Dismissals for things like improper venue, lack of PJ, or joinder issues do not count because the court never reached the merits.
If a case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, what is the split between the federal courts and the state courts with regard to whether that case was decided on the merits for res judicata?
– Federal courts: say re-litigation is barred because the plaintiff had an opportunity to amend, so if he cannot, it is likely because he has no right to relief under the law
– State courts: allow this because comparatively little litigation goes into preliminary dismissals
Is it necessary that a court decide the facts for a judgement to have full res judicata effect?
No, situations like failure to prosecute are deemed on the merits because the plaintiff had the full opportunity to litigate. The same is true for a defaulting defendant who never answered, so he lost on default. The focus is on the right to join the claim in the original action, not whether the claim was actually asserted. So a claim doesn’t have to have been actually litigated to be barred in a later action, it just had to have been available to the plaintiff in the first suit
Is it necessary that an original judgement have been correct in order to preclude further litigation?
No, it just had to be final and on the merits. Plaintiff should’ve appealed on the first suit instead of trying to relitigate in a second suit
If a first suit is dismissed under summary judgment, is that considered to be “on the merits” for res judicata?
Yes, and the same is true for judgement as a matter of law
What are examples of things that are considered to be “on the merits” for res judicata and that would result in claim preclusion, and what are things that are not considered to be “on the merits“?
– On the merits: 12b6 dismissals, summary judgement dismissal
– Not on the merits: lack of PJ, improper venue, lack of SMJ, dismissal for non-joinder of a party, voluntary dismissal, etc.
What is involved in the element for res judicata that requires the same claim and subsidiary issues?
The two claims do not have to be identical but they must come from the same TNO. When a party asserts a right to relief out of a particular TNO, he must join all claims that arise from it, or the omitted ones are barred by res judicata. This includes all claims that were brought and all that could have been brought in the first action because they came out of the same nucleus of operative facts or same TNO. When a claimant loses a judgment, all possible grounds for relief arising from the same TNO are barred in future litigation between the same parties or those in privity
Res judicata only bars claims that involve known damages, what does this mean?
It only bars claims that could have been joined in the original action. When the person was injured and sought damages for known injuries, but then ended up having worse problems later from the same injury, courts usually say that he should’ve recovered for all future damages that were reasonably likely to ensue in the first suit
What is the two disease approach under the element of same claims and subsidiary issues for res judicata?
The majority approach says that for situations when a person recovers for personal injury from exposure to something like asbestos and then 30 years later ends up getting cancer, strict res judicata would bar the second suit, but some courts allow the plaintiff to bring a second action even if he was previously aware of a separate injury from exposure
If a party has a contract claim and a personal injury claim from different events against the same party, is it necessary that he bring them together?
No, but he can bring them together if he wants to
If someone has a counterclaim that arises out of the same TNO, must he bring it in the original action?
Yes, if the counterclaim is compulsory
What is the federal procedural quirk that comes up regarding the element of same claims and subsidiary issues for res judicata?
Some claims have exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as copyrights, so a second action is not barred if the claim couldn’t have been included in the first action because it was in state court. The opposite is not true though. If the plaintiff first sues in federal court for a copyright claim and then tries to sue for other claims in state court, that would be barred because the other claims could have been brought in federal court on supplemental jurisdiction
If a first action was dismissed because it didn’t meet the requirements of the law, but then later the law changes, is that person allowed to bring a second action and have it not be barred under res judicata?
No, that is usually considered to be tough luck and the second action is barred. Each case is decided under the law at the time it is considered. But if the law changed while an appeal was pending, and the first action is still going on, then the court applies the law as it stands when the appeal is decided (not as it stood at trial).
If a judgement is made with a prospective application, what must the court do?
Needs to retain authority to modify orders in light of changed conditions. If the party moves to reopen the judgement to do something like adjust child support after a few years because of inflation, that is not a new action, so res judicata would not apply
What is involved in the element for res judicata that requires the same parties or persons in privity?
It must involve the same parties or persons and property in both the first and the second suit. Privity means when the relationship or interest is so closely intertwined that a decision controlling one controls the other
