Pg 37

Question 1

What is collateral estoppel?

Answer 1

This forecloses re-litigation of matters that have once been actually litigated and decided in a prior action regardless of whether they are the same claim.

Any issue of fact or law that was actually litigated and resolved by a valid final judgement binds the parties.

Question 2

What is the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel?

Answer 2

Res judicata deals with claim preclusion and collateral estoppel deals with issue preclusion

Question 3

How can collateral estoppel be considered a shield and a sword?

Answer 3

It also applies to defences

Question 4

If an issue could have been raised in a first case, but wasn’t, then what happens?

Answer 4

Collateral estoppel does not bar it from being litigated later. Collateral estoppel only bars people from relitigating specific issues that were already decided in the first action

Question 5

If there is an installment contract where the first installment arrives and the customer doesn’t like the packaging so he sues and the court rules against him, then the next shipment comes, is that considered to be the same TNO for res judicata or collateral estoppel?

Answer 5

While it is technically different, collateral estoppel bars it even though res judicata wouldn’t because the court already resolved the underlying issue about the packaging

Question 6

If an issue that was already litigated comes up again in later litigation based on separate events, what does collateral estoppel preclude?

Answer 6

Only issues that were actually decided before, not all possible issues that might have been raised.

Question 7

If you trespass on someone else’s land and you get sued for it, but you say you have an easement to cut firewood and the court says the easement is valid, why would res judicata bar you from suing again based on the same wood cutting incident?

Answer 7

Because you can’t bring an action for property damage from wood cutting because you should’ve done it in the original action. While collateral estoppel would bar you from relitigating certain issues from the first suit like the validity of the easement.

Question 8

What is a claim with regard to collateral estoppel?

Answer 8

All remedial rights that the plaintiff has against the defendant that arise out of a single transaction, occurrence, or series of TNOs. This is a group of facts that are limited to a single occurrence or transaction without particular reference to the resulting legal rights

Question 9

What are the required elements for collateral estoppel to apply?

Answer 9

– same parties and those in privity
– same issue in both cases
– issue was actually litigated
– issue was actually decided
– decision on prior actions must have been necessary to the court’s judgment
– no unfairness would result

Question 10

What is involved in the element for collateral estoppel that requires the same parties and those in privity?

Answer 10

At least one party must be the same.

Question 11

What are the two types of privity that can happen for collateral estoppel?

Answer 11

• defensive

- offensive

Question 12

What is involved in defensive privity for collateral estoppel?

Answer 12

A non-party to the first case that is a defendant in case two asserts that a plaintiff that was a party to the first case is bound by a determination made there. Common law required mutuality, but modernly one party must be the same in both suits

P [1] V. D [1]
P [1] V. D [2]
———————- same P

Question 13

What is involved in offensive privity for collateral estoppel?

Answer 13

A non-party in case one that is a plaintiff in case two asserts that a defendant party to case one is bound by a determination made there. This is discretionary and is bound by factors that are set out in Parklane based on the fairness to the defendant.

The defendant in case one had every incentive to litigate fully and vigorously, the judgment in the first action is not inconsistent with the previous judgment involving the defendant, the defendant in case one had procedural opportunities in case two that might bring a different result than in case one, and the non-party plaintiff could have readily joined the case but decided not to for strategic reasons.

P [1] V. D [1]
P [2] V. D [1]
——————— shares D [1]

Question 14

What is involved in the element for collateral estoppel that requires the same issue in both cases?

Answer 14

The second suit must be identical in all respects to the first suit. This is strictly construed. If something changes factually or legally, then it is not the same issue. The controlling facts and law must be unchanged

Question 15

If you file taxes and the IRS denies you a deduction and you go to court and win, then the next year you file the exact same taxes and they deny it again, if nothing has changed, can you use collateral estoppel?

Answer 15

Yes, but if your income has changed or the law has changed, then it isn’t the same issue and collateral estoppel doesn’t apply.

Question 16

What is involved in the element for collateral estoppel that requires that the issue have been actually litigated?

Answer 16

There must have been a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Question 17

If someone sues another person for breach of contract and the other person defends on another ground, can the other person defend a second suit for a later breach of the same contract on a ground that they never made the contract since they never actually litigated that issue in the original suit?

Answer 17

Yes

Question 18

Does default judgement count as an issue being actually litigated for collateral estoppel?

Answer 18

No

Question 19

What is required for the element for collateral estoppel that says that an issue must have been actually decided on the merits?

Answer 19

It had to have been valid and final and if the court finds for the plaintiff on one of two issues, then the one that was not decided on isn’t barred in re-litigation later even though the issue was fully litigated.

• there must be a full and fair opportunity to litigate
• the decision must have been valid and final

Question 20

What is involved for the element of collateral estoppel that requires a decision on a prior action must have been necessary to the court’s judgment?

Answer 20

The issue decided by the judge must have ultimately determined the outcome of the case

Question 21

If a judge finds that there is a product defect but that it didn’t cause the injury, can the person that made the product relitigate?

Answer 21

Yes, because the finding wasn’t necessary to the judgement since the finding that the product didn’t cause injury led to the verdict, not who made the product, so collateral estoppel wouldn’t bar this because the decision on the prior action wasn’t necessary to the court’s judgement

Question 22

What does it mean for collateral estoppel that the court may find for a litigant on two independent sufficient grounds?

Answer 22

Each issue is actually litigated and decided, but it is impossible to tell which was necessary to the judgment, so there is no collateral estoppel

Question 23

What is a special verdict form for collateral estoppel?

Answer 23

If parties foresee the possibility of future litigation involving the same issues, they can ask the jury to make findings on particular issues instead of a general finding for the plaintiff or defendant. Then it is clear what was decided and what was necessary

Question 24

If a case may have been decided on more than one ground, but it is impossible to figure out which, how do you figure out collateral estoppel?

Answer 24

None of the grounds are subject to collateral estoppel in a later action

Question 25

When two issues are decided in a case but one of them is not a ground for the result, how does collateral estoppel apply later?

Answer 25

That one is not precluded by collateral estoppel in a later case