Preclusion (mod 14)

Question 1

Law to apply

Answer 1

If case 1 and case 2 are in different judicial systems, the court in case 2 will apply the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided case 1

Question 2

Claim preclusion

Answer 2

Res judicata

Claimant may sue only once to vindicate claim

For a claim to be barred or merge:
- same claimant suing the same defendant in both cases,
- valid, final judgment on the merits
- case 1 and 2 assert the same claim

Question 3

Valid, final judgment on the merits

Answer 3

Unless the court said the judgment was without prejudice when entered, any judgment is on the merits unless it was based on a lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or a failure to join an indispensable party

True even if there was no adjudication in case 1

Question 4

Same claim

Answer 4

Majority view and federal law - claim is any right to relief arising from a transaction or occurrence

Minority view / primary rights doctrine - there are separate claims for property damage and for person injuries that arise in a single event

Question 5

Issue preclusion

Answer 5

Collateral estoppel

Narrower than claim preclusion

Issue can not be relitigated in case 2 if
- case 1 ended in valid, final judgment on the merits
- same issues actually litigated and determined in case 1
- issue was essential to the judgment
- against someone who was a party to case 1 or in privity with a party (due process principle)
- person whom its used against had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue

Question 6

Nonmutual defensive issue preclusion

Answer 6

Person using preclusion was not a party to Case 1 and is the defendant in case 2
- trying to use it to defend themselves

Federal law and most states say this is okay as long as the person its used against had full chance to litigate it in case 1

Question 7

Nonmutual offensive issue preclusion

Answer 7

Person using preclusion was not a party to case 1 and is the plaintiff in case 2
- trying to use it as a sword against the defendant

Not allowed unless fair

Question 8

Fairness factors for nonmutual offensive issue preclusion

Answer 8

Court will consider whether
- party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in case 1
- the party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate case 1 (case 1 was for a small sum then less incentive unless larger cases would be forthcoming)
- party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined to case 1
- no inconsistent findings on the issue