1 / 10

King v. RLDS – Relationships

King v. RLDS – Relationships. Who’s involved and what are their positions RLDS Owner Tri-Cote Prime Contractor King Sub Contractor. King v. RLDS – Contracts What were the promises?. RLDS. Tri-C. Pay $448K. Fix Asbestos. Pay $448K. Fix Asbestos. Pay $56K. King. Supervise.

ailsa
Download Presentation

King v. RLDS – Relationships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. King v. RLDS – Relationships • Who’s involved and what are their positions • RLDS • Owner • Tri-Cote • Prime Contractor • King • Sub Contractor

  2. King v. RLDS – ContractsWhat were the promises? RLDS Tri-C Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $56K King Supervise

  3. King v. RLDSPerformance and Breakdown? • King does extra work ($7K) at RLDS’s direction. • RLDS finds King’s work unsatisfactory. • King is fired.

  4. King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) • Count I • Defendants • Tri-Cote • RLDS • Theories • Tort? & Contract? v. Both D’s • QM v. RLDS ($7K) Count II Irrelevant • Count III • Defendants? • RLDS • Not Tri-Cote • Theory • Interference with King’s ability to complete contract with Tri-C.

  5. King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) • What happened before trial? • King waived all tort claims. • What motions did King file at close of evidence? • Motion to amend to conform to evidence & assert 3rd party beneficiary contract theory • How did Court rule on that motion • Denied • What then happened re Count I • Re RLDS • Ct dismissed big claim since RLDS not party to contract • Let $7K QM claim go to jury which ruled for King • Re Tri-Cote • Jury awards $42K • What happened to Count II • Ct dismissed since RLDS not party to contract • What happened to Count III • Ct dismissed on basis that it is a tortious interference claim and King had waived right to assert tort claims. • Remember earlier refusal to allow amendment to assert 3rd party beneficiary contract theory.

  6. King II (King v. RLDS Only) • Who are the parties? • P – King • D – RLDS • What are King’s theories? • 3rd party beneficiary • Tortious interference • D (RLDS) raises collateral estoppel as a defense • On what issue(s) was D asserting estoppel? (Hint: the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t tell you) • Have elements of collateral estoppel been met in this case: • Identical issue • Judgment on the merits • PTB a party or in privity with a party in earlier case • Full & fair opportunity • No inequity • Why weren’t the issues “identical”? • What was the issue on which preclusion was asserted? • Was it an issue in King I? • Was it decided in King I? • What issue was decided in King I? • Some thoughts about Missouri’s “identical issue” requirement for collateral estoppel • “Necessarily and unambiguously decided” • “issues of ultimate fact” • “Essential to decision” (see n. 4)

  7. King II (King v. RLDS Only) • Res Judicata Defense • What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? • Why would court’s adopt res judicata? • Does the system work better with it or without it? • Why? • Elements of res judicata in King? • Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? • Could King have asserted claims in King I? • Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? • Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? • Same transaction standard • “whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” • What does that mean? • What is court trying to figure out?

  8. King II (King v. RLDS Only) • Res Judicata Defense • What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? • Why would courts adopt res judicata? • Elements of res judicata in King? • Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? • Could King have asserted claims in King I? • Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? • Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? • Same transaction standard • Basic Formulation: “Same act, conduct, or transaction” • Alternative: “Whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” • What does alternate mean?

  9. King II (King v. RLDS Only) • Could have been brought standard • Speculative or unripe claims • Jurisdictional problems • The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” • Meaning of validity • Meaning of finality • Meaning of “on the merits” • Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel • The Baffling “Four Identities” • Identity of thing sued for • Identity of the causes of action • Identity of persons and parties • Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made

  10. King II (King v. RLDS Only) • Could have been brought standard • Speculative or unripe claims • Jurisdictional problems • The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” • Meaning of validity • Meaning of finality • Meaning of “on the merits” • Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel • The Baffling “Four Identities” • Identity of thing sued for • Identity of the causes of action • Identity of persons and parties • Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made

More Related