PRECLUSION

Question 1

Basic Idea of Claim Preclusion

Answer 1

Whenever there has been an earlier case, watch for these claims, which concern the preclusive effect of a prior judgment on the merits. The question is whether a judgment already entered (Case 1) precludes litigation of any claims in another case (Case 2).

Question 2

If Case 1 and Case 2 are in different judicial systems (e.g., state and federal), the court in Case 2…

Answer 2

applies the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided Case 1.

Question 3

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)

Answer 3

You only get to sue on a claim once. So you only get one case in which to vindicate all rights to relief for that claim

Question 4

Requirements for Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata).:

Answer 4

1. Case 1 and Case 2 were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant.
2. Case 1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits.
3. Case 1 and Case 2 asserted the same “claim.”

Question 5

Case 1 and Case 2 asserted the same “claim.” requirement for preclusion - the 2 views:

Answer 5

Majority view (including federal law): a claim is any right to relief arising from a transaction or occurrence.

Minority (CA) View: There are separate claims for property damage and for personal injuries because those are different “primary rights.”

Question 6

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Answer 6

This is narrower. An issue was litigated in Case 1. The same issue comes up in Case 2. But if issue preclusion applies, we will not allow the issue to be relitigated in Case 2. We deem it established in Case 2.

Question 7

Requirements for Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Answer 7

1. Case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits.
2. The same issue was actually litigated and determined in Case 1
3. The issue was essential to the judgment in Case 1. That means the finding on this issue is the basis for the judgment.

Question 8

Against whom can issue preclusion be asserted?

Answer 8

It can only be used against somebody who was a party to Case 1 (or represented by a party in Case 1, like a class action), or in privity with a party in Case 1.

Question 9

By whom can issue preclusion be asserted?

Answer 9

Every court agrees that issue preclusion can be used by someone who was a party to Case 1 (or represented by a party). The big question is whether it can be used by someone who was not a party to Case 1 (or represented by a party).

Question 10

When someone who was not a party to Case 1 tries to use issue preclusion in Case 2, it is called:

Answer 10

“Nonmutual” issue preclusion

Question 11

“Nonmutual” issue preclusion comes up in 2 ways

Answer 11

1. Defensive nonmutual issue preclusion
2. Offensive nonmutual issue preclusion

Question 12

Defensive nonmutual issue preclusion

Answer 12

the one using it was not a party to Case 1 and is D in Case 2

Its ok if:

1. the same issue litigated and determined in Case 1
2. that issue essential to the judgment in Case 1
3. issue preclusion being asserted against one who was party to Case 1

Its ok as long as there was a full chance to litigate in case 1

Question 13

Offensive nonmutual issue preclusion

Answer 13

the one using it was not a party to Case 1 and is P in Case 2

Same general reqs as nonmutual defensive preclusion

The only tough part is the fifth, because issue preclusion is asserted nonmutually. And here, the person asserting it is a plaintiff. Under the
mutuality rule, could not be done. Most courts today probably say no. BUT A CLEAR TREND IN THE LAW WILL ALLOW IT IF IT IS NOT “UNFAIR.” Factors (just throw them in):