CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 40
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Dec 1 2003
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?
ISSUE PRECLUSION
What is its function?
What is its other name?
CONTRAST CLAIM/ISSUE
PRECLUSION
Res judicata is a BLUDGEON;
collateral estoppel is a scalpel
What are the elements of issue
preclusion?
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
Necessary to the Judgment
w Davis 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.
w Should 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?
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.
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 BlonderTongue, 402 U.S. 313, cited in Parklane
at 916.
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?
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?
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.
P.E. 33
CB p. 941