Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Preclusion Doctrines
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Restatement approach to "same claim" | "transaction" test, applied broadly 1. close in time, space, origin, more motivation 2. whether taken together they form a convenient until for trial purposes 3. whether treating them as sinble transaction comports w/ expectation of parties & bus.prac |
| "In Privity" Relationships Control: over legal theories/proofs & over opportunity to obtain review | Representation: Estate (trustee on behalf of estate); Guardian (ex. m v. d, then s v. d = sep. claims bc m not suing on behalf of s); Class Actions Substantive Legal Relationship: succ. of prop. Virtual Rep. |
| If a ct. enters a valid, final judgmnet on the merits and the losing party appeals, is the trial ct.'s judgmnet entitled to claim precusion? | Fed. Ct. = YES State Ct. = NO |
| Rule 41 (b) | Any judgment against the claimant, w/ the exceptions of ones for lack of jx for improper venue, or for nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties, operates as an adjudication upon the merits |
| Semtek | "on the merits" means can't bring claim in same federal ct. again. Whether judgment has preclusive effect in ANY other ct. is deteremined by fed. common law. Fed. common law = adopt preclusion rules from state in which fed. ct. sits |
| Exceptions to Claim Preclusion | 1. parties agree P may split claims 2. ct. reserved P's right to 2nd action 3. P unable to rely on certain theory, seek certain remedy/form of relief bc SMJ limitations on ct. (keep in mind P choice of forum) |
| Is Claim Preclusion a waivable defense? | YES, failure to assert claim preclusion as affirmative defense serves as a waiver |
| Alternative Determinations | D's negl./P's contrib. negl.: if only one of two were made, judgment would have been same Restatement = no preclusion effect to both determinations, unless one or both affirmed on appeal |
| Mutuality Exceptions: Vicarious Liability | Narrow Exception: Employer may assert i.p. ont he finding from the first case that Employee was not negligent (indeminification issues) Broad Exception: Some cts. allow Employee to assert nonmutual issue preclusion |
| Parklane Factors [Offensive Issue Preclusion] | 1. P could've easily joined 2. foreseeability & incentive to litigate 3. inconsistent judgments 4. different procedures available in one case, but not the other 5. P sat out and waited..."wait & see" |
| Exceptions to Issue Preclusion | 1. party couldn't have appealed 2. issue of law & cases involve unrelated claims or there's been change in law 3. difference in quality of proceedins or allocatio of jx 4. party had heavier burden in first action 5. clear/convincing need bc .... |
Created by:
r14me
Popular Miscellaneous sets