1
Q
Issue Preclusion
A
- aka collateral estoppel
- once an issue has been adjudicated between adverse parties, that identical issue cannot be relitigated in another lawsuit between the same parties
- this applies any time the issue pops up in subsequent suit between the parties (even if different claims)
2
Q
Claim Preclusion vs. Issue Preclusion
A
- claim preclusion forecloses all matters that “were or should have been” adjudicated in original suit
- vs. issue preclusion only forecloses issues that “were actively litigated + resolved” in prior action
3
Q
Requirements for Issue Preclusion
A
- issue or fact was actually litigated
- issue was determined by a valid judgment
- determination of the issue was essential to the final judgment
Note that if these three reqs met, the determination is conclusive on identical issue in subsequent action between the parties
4
Q
Relevant Considerations for Determining if Same Issue
A
- substantial overlap between evidence/argument in first and second?
- does new evidence or argument involve application of same rule of law as that involved in prior proceeding?
- could pretrial prep + discovery relating to matter presented in first suit reasonably be expected to have embraced matter in second?
5
Q
David P. Hoult v. Jennifer Hoult
A
- case w/ issue preclusion - assault case followed by subsequent libel case
- illustrates difficulty of figuring out whether issue actually litigated in original suit
6
Q
Jarosz v. Palmer - Facts
A
- Jarosz + three business partners hired attorney Palmer to assist in acquisition + financing of a business
- Jarosz terminated -> files suit against former partners + co -> says Palmer can’t represent them b/c conflict of interest-> judge dismisses this motion, saying Jarosz didn’t prove attorney-client relationship existed
- Jarosz then filed suit against Palmer, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, + legal malpractice -> Palmer argued issue preclusion on attorney-client relationship
7
Q
Jarosz v. Palmer - Decision + Reasoning
A
- no issue preclusion b/c the issue was actively litigated but wasn’t essential to the merits of the underlying case (essential to the particular decision on the motion, but not to the larger lawsuit)
8
Q
Essential to the Prior Judgment
A
- issue must be essential to the judgment in the prior case
- rationale = only matters central to outcome will likely be given sufficient attention by litigants + court to justify according them finality
9
Q
Settlements and Preclusion
A
- settlements generally don’t carry preclusive effect b/c no issue has been actually litigated + determined
10
Q
Preclusion and Burdens of Proof
A
- prior proceeding cannot have preclusive effect when party against whom preclusion now sought had significantly heavier burden of persuasion than the one in the present action
- no preclusive effect when adversary of party against whom preclusion sought has heavier burden in second case than the first
11
Q
Preclusion and Criminal Cases
A
- criminal cases usually have higher burden of proof (reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence)
- SO if you’re convicted of a crime, there is collateral estoppel in subsequent civil actions - you can’t contest liability in civil action after being found guilty in criminal one under higher burden
12
Q
Offensive Use of Collateral Estoppel
A
- use of collateral estoppel against defendant to block opportunity to relitigate same issues decided in a prior proceeding to which plaintiff wasn’t a party
- only allowed under certain circumstances (see Parklane)
13
Q
Defensive Use of Collateral Estoppel
A
- plaintiff estopped from litigating claim the plaintiff previously litigated + lost against another defendant
- promotes judicial economy b/c plaintiff can’t relitigate + therefore has incentive to join all potential defendants in first action if possible
14
Q
Parklane Hosiery Co. Inc v. Shore - Facts
A
- SEC filed suit against def in federal district court -> said proxy statement issued by Parklane materially false + misleading -> District Court ruled in favor of SEC
- Pls then brought stockholders’ class action against Parklane alleging same thing as SEC alleged -> moved for partial summary judgment on proxy statement issue due to prior SEC case - said defs collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues resolved against them in the SEC action
15
Q
Parklane Hosiery - Holding
A
- Offensive use of collateral estoppel discretionary but not prevented
- General Rule: in cases where pl could have easily joined the earlier action or where application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to def, trial judge shouldn’t allow use of collateral estoppel
16
Q
Potential Problems w/ Offensive Collateral Estoppel
A
- gives pls incentive to adopt “wait + see” attitude - stay out of first action b/c that way if defendant wins, it’s not binding on your later lawsuit, but if defendant loses, you’ll be able to invoke estoppel to automatically get the same judgment
- notion that it gives plaintiff everything to gain + nothing to lose by not intervening in first action
17
Q
Ways in Which Offensive Collateral Estoppel Might Be Unfair to Def
A
- if first action is for small or nominal damages, def may have little incentive to defend in first action (vs. potentially larger in second)
- judgment relied on as basis for estoppel might be inconsistent with one or more judgments in favor of defendant (allows plaintiff to benefit from the one that works while ignoring the others not in their favor)
- second action might afford defendant procedural opportunities unavailable in first action that might lead to different result
18
Q
Why allow for non-mutuality?
A
- efficiency of judicial resources
- incentivizing parties to put all resources into one dispute rather than multiple
Civil Procedure
flashcards
Decks in class (5)
# Cards
