Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Issue Preclusion - Civil Procedure - Lecture Notes, Study notes of Civil procedure

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar UniversityCivil procedure

These are the lecture notes of Civil Procedure. Key important points are: Issue Preclusion, Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment, Jurisdictional Fact, Essential to the Judgment, Wiggle Room, Same Issue, Determinative, Various Approaches, Neither is Preclusive

Typology: Study notes

2012/2013

Uploaded on 01/27/2013

sonam-g
sonam-g 🇮🇳

4.8

(5)

21 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
Issue Preclusion
Issues must be actually litigated and decided, but don’t necessary need a final
judgment (EX-partial summary judgment, procedural/jurisdictional fact: SMJ, PJ)
Must be essential to the judgment (if it wasn’t, then issue preclusion can’t be
used, finder of fact might not have taken that seriously)
What’s the same issue?
o Not about things you should have brought up, but things you did bring up
o There is some wiggle room about what is the “same issue”
o Some issues are basically the same
Must be a party or in privity to be bound: you can have your day in court
What if 2 issues are found in favor of a party, each of which is sufficient so
neither of which is necessary
o There is a problem here because one or the other issue can be
determinative
o various approaches
1st Restatement – both preclusice
neither is preclusive
2nd Restatement (neither is unless there’s an appeal on that issue)
o Another approach: try to figure out which issue(s) were taken seriously in
the prior action
o Special verdicts are good for determining what issues the jury found (jury
determines facts, court applies the law)
Inconsistent judgments: what if the 2nd court ignores issue preclusion and comes
to a different determination than the 1st ? Which determination has issue
preclusive effect for the third court?
Example:
• P & D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly
• D breaches
• P sues D in CA
• D argues contract is invalid; D loses
• D breaches again
• P sues D in NV
• D argues contract is invalid; court ignores issue preclusion;
D wins (violation of Full Faith & Credit Clause)
o P may fail to bring it up
o P may bring up and court does not recognize it
• D breaches again
• P sues D in CA
• Which determination has issue preclusive effect?
o Must consider the most recent holding
o Why?
Docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Issue Preclusion - Civil Procedure - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!

Issue Preclusion

 Issues must be actually litigated and decided, but don’t necessary need a final judgment (EX-partial summary judgment, procedural/jurisdictional fact: SMJ, PJ)  Must be essential to the judgment (if it wasn’t, then issue preclusion can’t be used, finder of fact might not have taken that seriously)  What’s the same issue? o Not about things you should have brought up, but things you did bring up o There is some wiggle room about what is the “same issue” o Some issues are basically the same  Must be a party or in privity to be bound: you can have your day in court  What if 2 issues are found in favor of a party, each of which is sufficient so neither of which is necessary o There is a problem here because one or the other issue can be determinative o various approaches  1 st^ Restatement – both preclusice  neither is preclusive  2 nd^ Restatement (neither is unless there’s an appeal on that issue) o Another approach: try to figure out which issue(s) were taken seriously in the prior action o Special verdicts are good for determining what issues the jury found (jury determines facts, court applies the law)  Inconsistent judgments: what if the 2nd^ court ignores issue preclusion and comes to a different determination than the 1st^? Which determination has issue preclusive effect for the third court?  Example:

  • P & D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly
  • D breaches
  • P sues D in CA
  • D argues contract is invalid; D loses
  • D breaches again
  • P sues D in NV
  • D argues contract is invalid; court ignores issue preclusion; D wins (violation of Full Faith & Credit Clause) o P may fail to bring it up o P may bring up and court does not recognize it
  • D breaches again
  • P sues D in CA
  • Which determination has issue preclusive effect? o Must consider the most recent holding o Why?

 P (may have) failed to mention issue preclusion & missed his chance)  However, if P brought it up, he could have appealed the court’s refusal to acknowledge preclusion

o remember, under full faith and credit court must give a judgment the same preclusive effect it would have under the rendering state’s law o Issue preclusion is an affirmative defense: defendant must bring it up

 Exceptions to issue preclusion: o (1) party couldn’t have obtained review of the judgment (no appeal) o (2) differences in quality and extensiveness of proceedings o (3) one party had a heavier burden (EX- criminal acquittals do not have issue preclusive effect on civil actions by the government, but convictions do have issue preclusive effect against the defendant)  Example:

  • D is acquitted of a criminal charge in connection with resisting arrest
  • Government sues civilly for damages to the officer
  • Issue precluded? No. o Difference in burden of proof: “beyond a reasonable doubt” versus “preponderance of the evidence” o However, criminal convictions can have issue preclusion in subsequent civil actions against the defendant precluded since the burden of proof is so much higher in the first than the second o not fair if it’s not sufficiently foreseeable  issue preclusion only applies if there are 2 cases  issue preclusion is an affirmative defense and so waivable (but not like PJ – if you forgot it you can amend)  consistency and efficiency  pure issues of law don’t have issue preclusive effect o why?  cannot foresee future case in which same issue of law would arise  pure issues are law are much easier/cheaper to litigate, so efficiency of issue preclusion is not as important  stare decisis: does some of what issue preclusion does anyway  it is unfair to make someone bound by a legal rule in perpetuity when the law might have moved on for others

 Remember: changes in the law alone don’t affect claim or issue preclusion o changes in the law don’t give you a do-over

  • P defends on the ground of easement
  • Is X issue precluded? Yes. The earlier judgment was binding.
  • Privity relationship: between X and D o X was a successor in interest o D litigated as the owner of the property o Litigation: nature of the property; does not change with change in owner
  • You need issue preclusion when the property is sold; you need to know what the property is

 Sometimes someone controls litigation for someone else and there’s issue preclusion  Example 2

  • P sues corp.
  • Main shareholder controls litigation for corp
  • Corp. loses
  • In litigation between P and main shareholder, main shareholder can be precluded (since he controlled the corp. at the time of the earlier action)
  • interests must overlap very very well  Parent is not bound in subsequent litigation when parent represented child earlier  Example 3
  • P as guardian of X sues D
  • P loses
  • P then sues D in an individual capacity
  • Issue precluded? No.
  • The parent should not be bound; he was litigating the interests of the child, not himself.
  • The same principle would apply to husband and wife.

 Necessary parties who don’t intervene and are aware of the lawsuit have sometimes been thought to be issue precluded (not just people who could have intervened and don’t): don’t want someone who was already a party to be subject to inconsistent obligations  Example 4 (exception to privity)

  • P sues D to put up a dam
  • The dam will flood X’s property
  • P wins
  • X is aware of the litigation, but does not intervene
  • X then sues D to have the dam removed
  • Is X issue precluded? Some courts say yes.
  • No privity relationship, but preclusion applies.
  • Rule (new): o The problem is not just that X could have intervened, but didn’t o The problem is that X was a necessary party o Why necessary? If X was not made a party, D could be subject to inconsistent injunctions (obligations)

Mutuality

 Old rule: person has to be either a party or in privity (mutuality requirement) to take advantage of issue preclusion grounds (exception: 1st^ suit against employee, 2 nd^ suit against employer under respondeat superior, employer can use issue preclusion, but not the other way around).

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association

  • Bernhard (beneficiary) sues Cook: court determines the money was a gift
  • Bernard as administratrix (different capacity) sues bank for Cook’s money from the first lawsuit (she claimed it was stolen)
  • Privity issue (beneficiary and administratrix are in privity o Why is Bernard is beneficiary in privity with Bernhard as administratrix? o Overlap of interest between the beneficiaries of the estate and the decedent (privity)
  • Next question – can Bank take advantage of issue preclusion , even though it was not a party in the earlier suit?
  • CA SCt Yes.