Law Commons^™

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 …

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 Also, the Second Circuit released over fifty unpublished decisions that affect the rights of pro se litigants appearing before the court.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 …

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.

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.