Law Commons^™

Blowing Hot And Cold In Litigation: Abuse Of Process, Election Or Approbation And Reprobation? Bwg V Bwf [2020] Sgca 36, Dorcas Quek Anderson

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This note analyses the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in BWG v BWF which allowed the adoption of inconsistent positions across related court proceedings against different parties. The decision raises crucial questions on the limits to be imposed on a party’s freedom to pursue opposing rights in litigation, and how the doctrines of abuse of process, election by waiver, and approbation and reprobation should be applied. It is argued that the court’s application of the abuse of process doctrine obscured the central exercise of assessing all the relevant interests and circumstances. The differing rationales underlying the common law doctrine of …

Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion Revisited, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Some forty years ago, in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court held that the rule of mutuality of estoppel was no longer an absolute bar to the invocation of issue preclusion for the benefit of a plaintiff who had been a stranger to the prior (F-1) litigation against a defendant who had been party to both the F-I and present (F-2) cases. In so ruling, the Supreme Court gave its imprimatur to Judge Traynor's dramatic takedown of the mutuality rule in Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association nearly four decades …

Only One Kick At The Cat: A Contextual Rubric For Evaluating Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In International Commercial Arbitration, Randy D. Gordon

Randy D. Gordon

Arbitration is the preferred method of resolving disputes arising out of international commercial transactions. It stands outside national legal systems because contracting parties agree in advance that they want neutral arbitrators — not local judges and juries — deciding who is at fault when a commercial relationship breaks down. But arbitration nevertheless butts up against litigation from time to time, often because one party attempts to arbitrate a matter that has been litigated to conclusion or vice versa. This article examines — through a contextual approach — questions of preclusion that thereby arise and ultimately suggests that res judicata and …

Defining The Limits To Abuse Of Process: Lim Geok Lin Andy V Yap Jin Meng Bryan, Dorcas Quek Anderson

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The abuse of process jurisdiction, which forms part of the doctrine of res judicata, is meant to uphold finality of litigation and prevent abusive litigation. While the jurisdiction has been applied to the original parties of earlier court proceedings, it could also prevent a person who was not part of earlier court proceedings from litigating his claim. In such circumstances, the abuse of process doctrine has to be cognisant of the commercial realities and motivations driving choices to advance separate rather than consolidated proceedings, while also protecting litigants from repeated litigation. A recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision imposed constraints …

Civil Practice And Procedure, Christopher S. Dadak

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Delusive Exactness In California: Redefining The Claim, Kami Laberge

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

My view of primary right may differ from yours, and we have no common ground, only the statement of our opposing views.

Limiting The Last-In-Time Rule For Judgments, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A troublesome problem arises when there are two binding but inconsistent judgments: Say the plaintiff loses on a claim (or issue) in the defendant’s state and then, in a second action back home, wins on the same claim (or issue). American law generally holds that the later judgment is the one entitled to preclusive effects. In the leading article on the problem, then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that our last-in-time rule should not apply if the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the second court’s decision against giving full faith and credit. Although that suggestion is unsound, the last-in-time rule …

Solving The Puzzle Of Transnational Class Actions, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

How should a U.S. class action treat proposed foreign class members in a circumstance where any resulting judgment will likely not bind those absentees abroad? The dominant approach has been an exclusionary one, dropping the absentees from the class. This essay instead recommends an inclusionary approach, so that all the foreigners would remain members of the class in transnational class actions. But the court should create a subclass in damages actions for the foreign claimants who might have an incentive to sue again; the subclass would proceed by the accepted technique of claims-made recovery, so that the subclass members could …

Solving The Puzzle Of Transnational Class Actions, Kevin M. Clermont

Indiana Law Journal

How should a U.S. class action treat proposed foreign class members in a circumstance where any resulting judgment will likely not bind those absentees abroad? The Author responds to Zachary Clopton’s analysis of this puzzle, and introduces a counterproposal.

Class Certification’S Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Essay answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority …

Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Part I of this article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2013 through June 2014 addressing noteworthy civil procedure topics. Part II addresses amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period. PartIII discusses legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2014 session that relates to civil practice.

The New York Court Of Appeals Visits (And Then Revisits) The Preclusive Impact Of Administrative Findings Of Fact In Subsequent State Court Actions, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Court of Appeals decision in Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, 3 N.E.3d 682 (N.Y. 2013), recognizes that administrative proceedings which take the form of “quasi-judicial” determinations may sometimes be given preclusive impact in subsequent judicial proceedings provided that the identity of issue and full and fair opportunity requirements of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion are satisfied. The decision also recognizes that administrative determinations made without the benefit of rules of evidence, pre-trial disclosure and motion practice should be given very limited affect in subsequent judicial proceedings. The fact that the Empire State’s highest court unanimously reversed itself …

Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. The article discusses opinions of theSupreme Court of Virginia from June 2012 through June 2013 addressing civil procedure topics, significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period, and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2013 session that relates to civil practice.

Marco V. Doherty: Forcing An Agency To Play By Its Own Rules: Administrative Res Judicata, Matt Bove

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Annexation Of The Jury's Role In Res Judicata Disputes: The Silent Migration From Question Of Fact To Question Of Law, Steven J. Madrid

Cornell Law Library Prize for Exemplary Student Research Papers

When the application of res judicata involves factual disputes, the jury must be the judicial actor to resolve these discrepancies. The fact-law distinction, which gives questions of fact to the jury and questions of law to the judge, has guided American courts for hundreds of years. From the time of the adoption of the Seventh Amendment until the end of the nineteenth century, courts have viewed res judicata disputes as factual determinations within the province of the jury.The migration from question of fact to question of law in the twentieth century lacked any proffered legal justification, and even as the …

Class Certification’S Preclusive Effects, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Essay answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority …

Only One Kick At The Cat: A Contextual Rubric For Evaluating Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In International Commercial Arbitration, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Arbitration is the preferred method of resolving disputes arising out of international commercial transactions. It stands outside national legal systems because contracting parties agree in advance that they want neutral arbitrators — not local judges and juries — deciding who is at fault when a commercial relationship breaks down. But arbitration nevertheless butts up against litigation from time to time, often because one party attempts to arbitrate a matter that has been litigated to conclusion or vice versa. This article examines — through a contextual approach — questions of preclusion that thereby arise and ultimately suggests that res judicata and …

Second Circuit 2005 Res Judicata Developments, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the 2005 survey year, federal courts in the Second Circuit decided a number of important res judicata matters. Several district courts applied the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion to administrative and arbitral determinations. Several courts also expanded the “actually litigated” requirement for collateral estoppel and liberally applied the doctrine of defensive claim preclusion for counterclaims. Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued seven res judicata decisions. In one, Vargas v. City of New York, the Second Circuit refined the standards for applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This survey article will review some of …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk, Michael R. Spitzer Ii

University of Richmond Law Review

This article will summarize recent developments of interest to practitioners handling civil cases in the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Specifically included are relevant decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia dating from opinions announced on June 10, 2004 to those announced on April 22, 2005; changes to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia announced during the same time period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly at its 2005 Session, effective July 1, 2005.

Preclusion In Class Action Litigation, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

"Despite the intense focus that courts and commentators have trained upon class litigation for the last twenty-five years, a central feature of the class-action lawsuit has received no sustained attention: the preclusive effect that a judgment in a class action should have upon the other, non-class claims of absentees. The omission is a serious one. If claim and issue preclusion were to operate in their normal mode when a claim is certified for class treatment, absentees would sometimes face a serious threat of having their high-value individual claims compromised. Such a threat, in turn, can create ex ante conflicts of …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Offensive Issue Preclusion In The Criminal Context: Two Steps Foward, One Step Back, Michelle S. Simon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article addresses whether the expansion of the doctrine of issue preclusion in the federal criminal area should mirror the expansion of the doctrine in the federal civil area. The article examines the general requirements of issue preclusion and the evolution of issue preclusion in both the civil and criminal context. Next, this article examines the current status of offensive and defensive issue preclusion when the first suit is civil and the second suit is criminal, the first suit is criminal and the second suit is civil, and where both the first and second action is criminal. The article then …

Second Circuit 1999-2000 Res Judicata Developments, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

During the 1999-2000 survey year the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued at least twenty-five res judicata decisions expanding the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The court liberally applied claim preclusion but infrequently applied the more expansive doctrine of issue preclusion. Also, the Second Circuit released over fifty unpublished decisions that affect the rights of pro se litigants appearing before the court. These decisions demonstrate the court's immense respect for the doctrine of res judicata. Similarly, the decisions illustrate the extent to which the court relies on the doctrine to achieve finality, to …

Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Res judicata is hard enough already. Consider it at the interjurisdictional level, and we are asking for headaches. But consider it at that level we must, because litigation trends make interjurisdictional preclusion1 more important than ever. Lawyers, judges, litigants, and other litigation participants increasingly must contemplate the possibility that a lawsuit will have claim-preclusive or issue-preclusive effect in a subsequent suit in another jurisdiction. This article examines the problem of interjurisdictional preclusion, and, in particular, the problem of choice of preclusion law. Choice of-preclusion law cannot be appreciated in the abstract, but rather must be considered in light of litigation …

Fifty Years Of Bernhard V. Bank Of America Is Enough: Collateral Estoppel Should Require Mutuality But Res Judicata Should Not, Michael J. Waggoner

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Opportunity To Be Heard And The Doctrines Of Preclusion: Federal Limits On State Law, William V. Luneburg

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure–Collateral Estoppel–Offensive Use Of Equity Finding Allowed In Subsequent Law Action, Christopher John Heller

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fears V. Lunsford, 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1975), Diane Kay Kiesling

Florida State University Law Review

Civil Procedure- VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL- PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO TAKE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL IS ABSOLUTE; OR PLAINTIFF GETS A SECOND CHANCE.

Civil Procedure-Judgements-Mutuauty As Requirement For Assertion Of Collateral Estoppel Against Claimant Who Was Claimee In Prior Action, William E. Wickens

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff corporations, the sole shareholder of which was their president, sued defendant insurers to recover for the alleged theft of the corporations' furs. In an earlier criminal action, the president (conceded by the corporations to be their mere alter ego for purposes of res judicata) had been convicted of attempted grand theft, conspiracy to commit grand theft, and the filing of fraudulent insurance claims for loss of the same furs; it was there determined that the president had staged the theft of the furs. In plaintiffs' civil action, the superior court rejected defendants' plea of collateral estoppel as to the …