Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
4 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
basic Stuff
|
a. If case 2 is in different ct system from case one, which system's law applies regarding claim and issue preclusion?
i. System that decided case 1 b. Suppose judgment in case 1 has been appealed or time for appeal not expired i. Judgment entitled to claim or issue preclusion effect under fed law, but not under CA law. c. Preclusion are affirmatiev Ds, so def should raise them in her answer. i. Often presented in SJ motion on bar exam. |
|
|
Claim Preclusion - Elements
|
○ Case 1 and 2 brought by same P against same D
○ Case 1 ended in final judgment on merits (not based on jurisdiction, venue, or indispensible parties) ○ Case 1 and 2 asserted the same cause of action or claim § Fed: "claim" means same t/o § CA: "Cause of Action" - separate CoAct for each right invaded, no regard to transaction |
|
|
Issue Preclusion - Elements
|
○ Case 1 ended in valid, final judgment on merits
○ Same issue was actually litigated and determined in case 1 ○ Issue was essential to judgment in case 1 - case would have been different otherwise ○ Can only be asserted against someone who was party or represented by a party (e.g. class action)in claim 1 ○ Who can assert? |
|
|
Issue Preclusion - Who can assert?
|
§ Traditional view: mutuality from case 1required
§ Nonmutual defensive - allowed when compelling reason for such □ e.g. P sues someone primarily liable for neg, loses. Will allow collateral estoppel against P on negligence issue if P then tries to sue someone secondarily liable. § Nonmutual offensive □ Allowed if not unfair: ® Person asserted against had full and fair opportunity to litigate in case 1 ® D could foresee multiple suits ® P could not have joined easily in case 1 ® No inconsistent judgments on record |
