Recognition of Judgments Flashcards
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
- Valid (jurisdiction
- Final Judgment (litigated)
- on the merits (fairly broad)
in a case brought by P against D, bars re-litigation of the same claim by the same parties in a subsequent trial.
Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
bar re-litigation of a particular issue determined in a previous case to which she was a party.
General Rule: when an issue of fact or law is actually litigated, and determined by a valid final judgment on the merits, and determination is essential to the judgment, that determination is conclusive in a subsequent action against a party to whom you are attempting to preclude, and opportunity to fully and fairly litigate that issue.
c. Requirements:
i. Actually litigated
ii. Been essential to the judgment
iii. Valid final judgment on the merits
iv. Against whom can be preclusion be asserted?
v. Who can assert preclusion?
1. Doctrine of Non-Mutuality
Attacking a Judgment
a. Direct attack (appeal)
b. Collateral attack
c. Full faith and credit
General Rules
a. A court must enforce a judgment
b. A court must enforce a judgment to the extent it affects the particular parties (Yarborough)
c. The rendering court determines the scope of the judgment; a party cannot bring a second claim in a second state for an issue included in the scope of the first judgment
d. The rendering court does not bind individuals not party to the original suit
e. Exceptions to full faith and credit:
i. The first court makes a legal rather than factual determination (this can be re-litigated by a second court)
ii. Real property is not within the jurisdiction of another state (Clarke)
Gambling Arbitration Case
parties entered into contract in MS on gambling in futures prohibited by MS law; after a disagreement, parties went to an arbitrator and complainant got an award; prevailing party took the arbitration award to MO for enforcement and prevailed; prevailing party then took the MO judgment to MS for enforcement; MS court refused to give effect to the MO judgment as abhorrent to MS public policy;
Supreme Court required MS to enforce MO judgment under full faith and credit)
Yarborough (GA divorce)
Supreme Court held that GA order was not modifiable and father had already applied; full faith and credit required SC court to recognized GA decision as final
Judgments and the Interest of the Forum
Washington Gas Light
DC resident was injured while working in VA; he won an award by the VA workers comp board; under VA law, the board’s award is an exclusive, binding determination.
distinction between an administrative board and a court of general jurisdiction – a workers comp board in VA would not have jurisdiction to apply DC law, so plaintiff is allowed to adjudicate his DC law claims in a DC court.
Limitations of FF&C:
Durfee v. Duke
issue of subject matter jurisdiction turned on whether land was in Missouri or Nebraska; Nebraska court found land was in Nebraska and awarded title to plaintiff; defendant then sued in Missouri claiming the land was in Missouri;
MO court dismissed the claim based on full faith and credit because the Nebraska judgment precluded the issue of fact from being retried.
MO court was entitled to look at the issue of whether NB court had jurisdiction. When inquiry showed had been fully and fairly litigated in NE, required to give FF&C.
Land Taboo:
Clarke v. Clarke
Wife died and left property in CT. law of the situs applies. South Carolina cannnot affect real estate in CT (no SMJ).
Land of Taboo:
Fall v. Eastin
Couple lived in NE, owned land, moved to WA, got divorced, WA ct awards deed to wife.
WA ct had no SMJ over land in NE and ct’s deed is unenforceable. WA divorce decree ok, but method of enforcement need be left to NE.
Non-Final Decree
A judgment is final if a court says it is final and enforceable (states have their own rules regarding finality during appeal)
Modifiable (support) decrees are non-final
a. Modifiable decrees can be partially final if modifiable only prospectively.
b. Standards for modification are those of the rendering court; a second court may modify, but must use rendering court’s standards.
Non-Final Decree:
Worthley v. Worthley
NJ couple married and separated there; NJ separation decreed ordered husband to pay wife weekly; husband moved to CA and stopped payment; wife brought suit in CA seeking back pay and continuation of weekly payments;
NJ order was modifiable prospectively and retroactively; if the court order was modifiable only prospectively, it would have been enforceable in any other jurisdiction
not bound or banned from upholding NJ decree.
law to determine if decree is modifiable: forum law of NJ
Equitable Decrees
- Equitable decrees are final; those resulting in damages are binding orders entitled to full faith and credit
- Injunctions can only be enforced under full faith and credit as long as there are no new parties
Equitable Decrees:
Baker v. GM
GM employee Elwell served as witness for GM in product liability cases; he appeared against GM and was fired; he sued GM for wrongful discharge; Elwell and GM settle and Elwell agrees not to testify against GM at a depo or trial unless compelled by the court; Elwell has plaintiffs subpoena him to get around the settlement agreement; Baker hires Elwell to testify in MO; GM wanted MO court to reject Elwell’s testimony as a violation of the agreement.
Supreme Court allowed Elwell to testify because equity decrees should be given full faith and credit unless they affect the rights of others; here, neither the state nor Baker were parties to the injunction so GM’s only recourse is to seek sanctions in Michigan or to register the injunction in MO as MO law)
a. This case stands for the proposition that there is no full faith and credit where the scope of the decision of the first court is extended beyond the parties and the system
b. Extension: a court does not have to follow the same procedure of enforcement that the rendering court would have used
enforcement measures do not travel with the judgment.
not required to enforce the judgment the same way the issuing ct would enforce it.
State Judgments in Federal Ct:
Allen v. McCurry (suppression hearing)
Rule: Federal law requires federal court to give full faith and credit to state judgments.
McCurry lost motion to suppress during state court criminal trial; McCurry then brought a § 1983 suit in federal court alleging unconstitutional search and seizure.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of an issue that has already been decided in an earlier proceeding. However, collateral estoppel does not apply unless the party against whom the earlier decision was rendered had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim or issue decided by the first court.
