Preclusive Effect of Judgments Flashcards
What is the basic idea regarding the preclusion of judgments?
Whenever there has been an earlier case, watch for these issues, which concern the preclusive effect of a prior judgment or decree on the merits. The idea is to avoid repetitive litigation. There are two doctrines: res judicata and collateral estoppel.
If Case 2 is in a different court system (e.g., federal or state) from Case 1, which system’s law applies regarding res judicata and collateral estoppel?
It is the system that decided case 1.
So Case 1 is in Virginia state court. Judgment is entered. Case 2 is in federal court. What law of res judicata and collateral estoppel does the federal judge use?
Virginia law.
Suppose the judgment or decree in Case 1 has been appealed (or the time for appealing has not yet expired). Is that judgment or decree entitled to res judicata or collateral estoppel effect?
Under Virginia law - No
Under Federal law - Yes
A sues B in Virginia state court. B sues A about the same event in federal court. Both cases are pending at the same time. Is there any role for res judicata or collateral estoppel?
No, because no final judgment has been entered.
A sues B in Virginia state court. B sues A about the same event in federal court. Both cases are pending at the same time. Is there anything the federal court can do to avoid this duplicative litigation?
No. The claim by B against A was not a compulsory counterclaim in the state case, because there is no compulsory counterclaim in Virginia state courts.
Also, when B sued A in federal court, A’s claim against B was already pending, so it’s not a compulsory counterclaim in the federal case. Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts will not dismiss just to avoid duplicative litigation.
The federal court might stay the case through the doctrine of abstention, but this is extremely rare.
What is res judicata?
It is claim preclusion, meaning you only get to sue on a cause of action (or claim) once.
Thus, you must seek all relief available under that cause of action in a single case or else you waive the right to go after it later.
What are the requirements under res judicata?
Requirements:
- Case 1 and Case 2 must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant.
- Case 1 must have ended in a valid final judgment (or decree) on the merits.
- “On the merits” does not necessarily mean that the parties actually litigated anything. It can include default judgments.
- General rule: Unless the court said otherwise when it entered the judgment, ANY JUDGMENT IS ON DEEMED ON THE MERITS UNLESS it is based on jurisdiction, venue, or indispensable parties. Even if nothing was litigated, the judgment is deemed to be on the merits.
- Case 1 and Case 2 must involve the same cause of action. (This part can get tough because of different possible definitions of cause of action.)
NOTE: In Virginia, there is no such thing as indispensable parties.
What is the Virginia exception to claim preclusion?
Where personal injury and property damage arise from the same transaction or occurrence, a party can sue under two separate causes of action.
Lois and Meg, each driving her own car, collide. Case 1: Lois sues Meg in Circuit Court. Judgment is entered. Case 2: Meg sues Lois, regarding the same wreck, in Circuit Court. Can this case be dismissed as res judicata?
No, because Meg has never been a claimant before.
If the claimant won Case 1, res judicata is called?
Merger
If the claimant lost Case 1, res judicata is called?
Bar
What is Collateral Estoppel?
It is issue preclusion. This is narrower than res judicata. It precludes relitigation of a particular issue that was litigated and determined in the first case. The effect is that the particular issue is deemed established in the second case.
What are the requirements under collateral estoppel? Who may it be asserted against and who may it be asserted by?
- Case 1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits.
- An issue presented in Case 2 was actually litigated and determined in Case 1.
- That issue was essential to the judgment in Case 1.
- Against whom? Collateral estoppel may be asserted only against one who was a party to Case 1 (or represented by that party (e.g., trustee representing beneficiary)).
- By whom may collateral estoppel be asserted?
– Mutuality view: Only by one who was a party to Case 1 (or represented by a party in Case 1).
– Modern trend to reject mutuality, to allow collateral estoppel to be asserted by someone who was NOT a party to the first case. This is called “nonmutual” collateral estoppel. It comes in two varieties:
- Nonmutual defensive collateral estoppel (that just means the person using it in Case 2 was not a party in Case 1 and is the defendant in Case 2).
- Nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel (that just means the person using it in Case 2 was not a party in Case 1 and is the plaintiff in Case 2).
What is nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel? Is it available under federal law or Virginia law?
Nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel just means the person using it in Case 2 was not a party in Case 1 and is the plaintiff in Case 2.
It is not available under Virginia law.
It is available under federal law if it is not unfair under the circumstances. To determine this, consider these factors:
(a) Party in Case 1 had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1;
(b) Party in Case 1 could foresee multiple suits;
(c) Party seeking to assert collateral estoppel in Case 2 could not have joined easily in Case 1; and
(d) There are no inconsistent judgments on record.
Example: If there had been multiple litigation, and sometimes the Party in Case 1 was found negligent and sometimes not, it would be unfair to let the party seeking to assert collateral estoppel in Case 2 get issue preclusion on a negligence finding.
