Law Commons^™

Taking The American Dream – A Remedy For Home Equity Theft Following The Sixth Circuit's Ruling In Harrison V. Montgomery County, Ohio, Elizabeth Black

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Claim Preclusion And The Problem Of Fictional Consent, Lindsey Simon

Scholarly Works

The doctrine of claim preclusion promotes fairness and finality by preventing parties from raising claims that already were (or could have been) raised in a prior proceeding. This strict consequence can be imposed only when the litigant received minimal due process protections in the initial proceeding, including notice and direct or indirect participation.

Modern litigation has caused a new problem. In some cases, a party may be precluded from ever raising a claim on the grounds of “fictional consent” to a prior court’s decisionmaking authority. Litigation devices have expanded the potential reach of judgments through aggregation and broad jurisdictional grants, …

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 …

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.

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. V. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. And Brain Life, Llc. V. Elekta, Inc.: Irreconcilable Conflict In The Law Governing Claim Preclusion In Patent Cases, Christopher Petroni

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In 1991, the Federal Circuit held that a judgment on the merits in a patent infringement action bars future claims based on products that are “essentially the same” as the product at issue in the former suit. This rule governed claim preclusion in patent actions until at least 2009. Then, in 2012, the Federal Circuit upended the apple cart with Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012), holding that a judgment in an infringement suit never bars future claims against products that could not have been accused in the former litigation, essentially the …

Recent Developments In Estoppel And Preclusion Doctrines In Consumer Bankruptcy Cases; Volume Ii Of Ii: Preclusion, Kevin M. Lewis, Paul M. Lopez, Scott Lawrence, Tim Springer

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights Are Civil Rights Are Civil Rights: The Inapplicability Of Preclusion To Unreviewed State Administrative Decisions , Heather Rutland

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This Comment addresses the history and intent behind administrative law and agency decision-making, and examines the differences between administrative proceedings and their judicial counterparts. Part II explains the history and effect of claim preclusion. Part III discusses the foundations of Administrative Law. Part IV reviews the Supreme Court's treatment of the preclusive effects of unreviewed agency determinations in civil rights cases, with particular focus on civil rights cases arising under Title VII, the ADEA, and §1983. Part V addresses the necessity and importance of judicial review of administrative agency findings. Part VI reviews the history and purpose of the civil …

Common Sense About Common Claims, David G. Karro

David G. Karro

In Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 506 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), the 9th Circuit affirmed an order certifying a nationwide class of 1.5 million women claiming sex discrimination by a single employer. The court held that class members are not entitled to notice that they are in the class until after the merits are decided, and that none has the right to refuse membership. It seemed to accept the idea that it could only certify the class if it “contemplated that all members of the class will be bound by the ultimate ruling on the merits,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 …

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 …

California’S Unpredictable Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion) Doctrine, Walter W. Heiser

San Diego Law Review

The doctrine of res judicata describes a set of rules that determine the preclusive effects of a final judgment on the merits. The California doctrine has two familiar components: a primary aspect, “res judicata” or claim preclusion; and a secondary aspect, “collateral estoppel” or issue preclusion. Under the claim preclusion aspect, a prior judgment bars the parties (or those in privity with them) from relitigating the “same cause of action” in a subsequent proceeding. Under the issue preclusion aspect, although a second suit between the same parties on a different cause of action is not precluded by a prior judgment, …

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.

Precluding Government Relitigation Of Statutory Interpretations: Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bradley Bishop Jones

Seattle University Law Review

This Note explores the issue of the applicability of the preclusion doctrines against the government. Specific focus is placed upon the doctrines’ application in cases where the government has previously litigated a question of statutory interpretation. The exploration begins with the recent case of Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Clark-Cowlitz), a classic factual setting for analyzing this issue. The Note then briefly examines the historical developments of the preclusion doctrines and the United States Supreme Court’s recent and continuing struggle with the application of the doctrines against the government. It is the position of …

Collateral Estoppel - A Colorado Primer, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no legal doctrine has been the source of so much confusion and misunderstanding as collateral estoppel. This is unfortunate since issues involving collateral estoppel arise in a large number of cases, and when properly raised are often determinative of the entire case. For the practicing attorney, it is just as important to know how to defend against an adversary's use of collateral estoppel as it is to know when and how to raise this doctrine offensively.

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.