Preclusion

Question 1

BASIC IDEA OF PRECLUSION

Answer 1

The basic idea of preclusion is whether there was an earlier case where a judgment was entered (CASE 1) Which precludes litigation of any of the matters in another case (CASE 2)

Note: If case 1 and case 2 are in different judicial systems (e.g. state v. federal) the preclusion law of the system that decided case 1 will be used.

Question 2

CLAIM PRECLUSION – RES JUDICATA

Answer 2

“ONE BITE AT THE APPLE”

STEPS / REQUIREMENTS

FIRST:
Case 1 and Case 2 need to have been brought by the SAME CLAIMANT AGAINST the SAME Defendant

NOTE: A vs. B ≠ B vs. A

NOTE: Even if not barred by res judicata a claim may be barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule for not having been brought up in the earlier case

SECOND:
Case 1 must have ended in a valid final judgment on the merits

Note: Unless the Ct. states otherwise ALL decisions are on the merits EXCEPT:

1. Jurisdictional issues decided
2. Issues of Venue decided
3. Issues of Indispensable Parties decided

THIRD:
Case 1 and Case 2 must have asserted the SAME CLAIM

Determining the the same claim:
Majority View (including Federal Law) = a claim is ANY right to relief arising from a transaction or occurrence

Minority View = There are separate claims for property damage and for personal injuries because those are different “primary rights”

Majority vs. Minority View: All else being equal the majority view will dismiss a second case for claim preclusion if it is the same car accident but case 1 is a suit for personal injuries sustained in the accident and case 2 is a suit for property damage arising from the same accident.

Question 3

ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL)

Answer 3

This is narrower than claim preclusion. in this situation, an issue was litigated in case 1 and the same issue arises in case 2. In this situation, issue preclusion will not allow the issue to be re-litigated in case 2. Instead it will be deemed as established per case 1.

STEPS / REQUIREMENTS

FIRST:
Case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits

SECOND:
The same ISSUE was actually litigated and determined in Case 1 – we must have actually litigated in case 1 (this is not a rqmt for claim preclusion)

THIRD:
The issue must have been essential to the judgment in case 1 (i.e. the finding on the issue WAS the basis for the judgment – the reason that the party won the case)

FOURTH:
The issue preclusion can ONLY be used against someone who was a party in Case 1 (or represented in case 1 through a class action) -- for Due Process reasons

FIFTH:
The party asserting the issue preclusion must fit into one of the following Categories:

1. ANYONE who was a party in Case 1 (or represented by a party)
2. NONMUTUAL DEFENSIVE ISSUE PRECLUSION:
   When a person was NOT a party in case 1 but is now a DEFENDANT in case 2, most courts say this is OK if steps 1-4 are met.
3. NONMUTUAL OFFENSIVE ISSUE PRECLUSION:
   When a person was NOT a party in case 1 and is now a PLAINTIFF in case 2, most courts say this is NOT ALLOWED even if steps 1-4 are met.

NEW TREND….A trend in the law to allow nonmutual offensive issue preclusion is to allow it if:

1. the party that was in case 1 had a full opportunity to litigate
2. the party that was in case 1 had an incentive to litigate strongly in case 1
3. The nonmutual party in case 2 could not have joined easily in case 1
4. There are no inconsistent findings on the issue from case 1