Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This lecture is from Civil Procedure. Major Points are General Rules of Pleading, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, General Rules of Pleading, Diversity and Alienage Jurisdiction. Key important points are: Actually Litigated, Litigated Fairly and Fully, Essential, Earlier Determination, Issue Precludes Relitigation, Dam, Not Intervene, Mutuality, Shoplifting, Employee Wins
Typology: Slides
1 / 39
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
If in an earlier case an issue was
P sues D to put up a dam The dam will flood X’s property P wins X is aware of the litigation but does not intervene X then sues D to have the dam removed Is X issue precluded?
Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust and Savings Ass’n
(Cal. 1942)
assume that bank could not issue preclude Bernhard and she won
could Cook have sued the bank for the money and won?
“In determining the validity of a plea of res judicata three questions are pertinent: Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? Was there a final judgment on the merits? Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?”
offensive
plaintiff in second suit uses issue preclusion as a sword
Parklane Hosiery v. Shore
(U.S. 1979)
P sues D in Va state court under (Nevada, federal, German) law
P sues D in federal court in Va under (Virginia, Nevada, German)
Swift v. Tyson (U.S. 1842)
general common law
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (U.S. 1938)
Upshot of Erie :
When entertaining a state law cause of action (e.g. in diversity, supplemental jurisdiction) the federal court should apply state law as interpreted by that state’s courts
BOYLE v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (U.S. 1988)
- Estate of a serviceman sued a federal military contractor under Virginia tort law in federal court (under diversity) for a design flaw in a helicopter that led to his death. - Contractor asserted federal defense of immunity for federal military contractors
