Term
|
Definition
| Also known as res judicata, is a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties and their privities in later suits on matters determined in the prior suit. |
|
|
Term
| Claim preclusion elements |
|
Definition
(1)Judgment is valid and final on the merits
(2)Same parties (or privities) in both suits
(3) same claim |
|
|
Term
| "judgment is valid and final on the merits" |
|
Definition
| A final judgment is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment (discovery sanctions count). |
|
|
Term
| "Same party or privities in both suits" |
|
Definition
| In "privity" means a relationship between the parties so close that it is proper to treat them as being bound by a judgment involving another. "Person in privity with another is a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right (Searle)." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
There are 4 views in determining whether or not it is the same claim:
(1) majority view--same transaction or occurrence,
(2)Minority view--same evidence,
(3) same right, and
(4) Virginia--same remedy and same cause of action. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether the same transaction or series of connected transactions is implicated in both actions (logical relationship). Look at restatement 24 for factors. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defines connected transaction factors as giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties expectations or business understanding or usage. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
One suit precludes a second "where the partes and the casue of action are identical."
Identical means the ecidence necessary to sustain a second verdict would sustain the first. Where the cause of action is based upon a common core of operative facts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whether the same right is infringed in the second action by the same wrong. |
|
|
Term
| same remedy and same casue of action |
|
Definition
Virginia follows the minority that it is okay to file two seperate claims; one for person and one for property.
There are four factors in determining if the claim has the same remedy and same COA:
(1)Identify the remedies,
(2)identify the COA,
(3) identify the parties, and
(4) identity of quality of parties. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Claim splitting is prohibited generally in three types of scenarios:
(1) seperate theories (alternative COA for the same wrong),
(2) Aritmatical (same wrong but with different harm),
(3) splitting relief (two remedies for the same wrong). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Also known as collateral estoppel is an issue that is decided against a party in a court proceeding that is conclusively decided, even in future litigation relying on different causes of action. |
|
|
Term
| Issue preclusion elements |
|
Definition
There are four elements to issue preclusion:
(1) an issue of fact or law,
(2) that as actually been litigated and determined by,
(3) a valid and final judgment, and
(4) the determination is essential to the judgment.
Then it binds the parties and privities in later suits regardless of what the "claim" is.
In instances of non-mutual a fifth element is added:
(5) a party against whom issue preclusion is sought to be applied had "adequate opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
There are three questions to determine if the same issue applies:
(1) were the parties different?
(2) is the definition the same in both actions?
(3) are the tests or burden of proof identical?
If not then it may not really be the same issue. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If there was no issue of fact or law actually litigated on the merits, issue preclusion doesn't apply to later case. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A final judgment is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to the court to do but execute the judgment. |
|
|
Term
| "an issue essential to the judgment" |
|
Definition
| the judgment must depen upon the fact/issue |
|
|
Term
| "adequate opportunit and incentive to litigate" |
|
Definition
Factors to be considered for whether the party had full and fair opportunity to litigate:
(1) choice of forum,
(2) incentive to litigate,
(3) did first court apply the wrong rule,
(4) did the first court fail to grasp the technical matter,
(5) was losing party deprived of key evidence,
(6)apparent prior case was the result of jury compromise,
(7)Prior case manifest injustice,
(8)new evidence discovered,
(9)incongruous results,
(10)was the party agaisnt whom IP is sought afforded due process in prior suit, and
(11) could the new party have easily joined the prior suit? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The courts given broad discretion in deciding whether the plaintiff could have easily joined the first case or if it would be fair to the defendant. The factors for offensive use come from restatement 29:
(1) would it negate the remedy of the firt case?
(2)forum not allowing full opportunity?
(3)could plaintiff have easily joined the first case?
(4) Inconsistent decisions,
(5) something unusual in the first case.
Four fairness reaons are the applied:
(1) apparent that the prior case was the result of jury compromise,
(2) prior case manifest injustice,
(3) new evidence discovered, and
(4) incongruous results. |
|
|
