1 / 12

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40. Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Dec 1 2003. CLAIM SPLITTING HYPO.

jerom
Download Presentation

CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40

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. CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Dec 1 2003

  2. CLAIM SPLITTING HYPO • Jeremy’s car is damaged in a collision with Marie’s car. Jeremy sues Marie in negligence for damage to the right fender of his car. The claim is dismissed on Marie’s motion for summary judgment. Can Jeremy then sue Marie for damage to the left fender of his car allegedly suffered in the same accident?

  3. ISSUE PRECLUSION • What is its function? • What is its other name?

  4. CONTRAST CLAIM/ISSUE PRECLUSION • Res judicata is a BLUDGEON; collateral estoppel is a scalpel • What are the elements of issue preclusion?

  5. ELEMENTS OF ISSUE PRECLUSION (s. 27 Restatement (Second) of Judgments • Same issue • Actually litigated • Actually decided • Determination is essential to judgment • Some state courts require mutuality, i.e. same parties

  6. Necessary to the Judgment • wDavis sued Rios for negligence in an automobile collision. The jury found Rios negligent but also found Davis contributorily negligent (and jurisdiction barred P from recovering where he was contributorily negligent). Judgment entered for Rios. • wShould the court in a subsquent claim by Rios for injuries suffered in the same collision hold that Rios was barred from relitigating on the basis that his contributory negligence determined in first proceeding?

  7. NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT • A useful test: ask yourself if the issue had been decided the opposite way, would the same judgment have been entered? If so, the judgment did not depend on the way the issue was actually resolved.

  8. Mutuality • Parklane Hosiery v. Shore 439 U.S. 322, CB p. 914 • What is a proxy statement? • Offensive vs. Defensive use of collateral estoppel • You should know the case of Blonder-Tongue, 402 U.S. 313, cited in Parklane at 916.

  9. Offensive Collateral Estoppel • Justice Stevens in Parklane (CB p. 917): “Offensive use of collateral estoppel does not promote judicial economy in the same manner as defensive use does.” • Why not?

  10. Offensive Collateral Estoppel • Provides incentive for Ps to “wait and see” • May be unfair to a defendant • According to the majority in Parklane, should the court allow the offensive use of collateral estoppel in the circumstances of that case? • Why did the dissent disagree?

  11. Due Process Limit on Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel • Applies only to litigant who has already lost on the issue, not someone who has never had a chance to litigate the issue.

  12. P.E. 33 • CB p. 941

More Related