Tues., Nov. 4

issue preclusion

If in an earlier case an issue was - actually litigated and decided - litigated fairly and fully - and essential to the decision then the earlier determination of the issue precludes relitigation of the same issue by someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the earlier litigation

Little v. Blue Goose Motor Coach (Ill. 1931)

- P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp - P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp. every month for 2 years - D introduces the defense of fraud, on the ground that at the time they entered into the contract P lied to D about the C Corp.’s oil assets - D loses on that issue; judgment for P Subsequently D breaches the contract again - P sues D and D introduces two defenses: statute of frauds (the contract was not in writing) fraud (at the time that they entered into the contract, P lied to D about the C Corp.’s coal assets) - Is D issue precluded?

Jacobson v. Miller (Mich. 1879)

actually litigated and decided

- P sues D for negligence - D admits negligence but introduces the affirmative defense of contributory negligence in his answer - At trial, no evidence for or against contributory negligence is offered by either side and the jury finds for P - D subsequently sues P for his damages in accident. - D be issue precluded from relitigating P’s negligence?

default judgment? summary judgment? consent judgment?

essential to the judgment?

Cambria v. Jeffery (Mass. 1940)

- P sues D for interest on note - D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest - P wins - P then sues for principal - D brings up fraud in execution of note - Is D issue precluded?

- P sues D for interest on note - D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest - D wins on both grounds - P then sues for principal - D brings up fraud in execution of note - Is P issue precluded?

P sues D for interest on note - D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest - D wins on both grounds - P then sues for subsequent interest - D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of obligation to pay interest - Is P issue precluded?

- P and D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly - D breaches - P sues D in California - D argues that the contract is invalid, D loses on issue - D breaches again - P sues D in Nevada - D argues that the contract is invalid (P fails to mention issue preclusion), D wins on issue - D breaches again - P sues D in California - Which determination has issue preclusive effect?

- P and D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly - D breaches - P sues D in California - D argues that the contract is invalid, D loses on issue - D breaches again - P sues D in Nevada - D argues that the contract is invalid - P brings up issue preclusion, but the Nevada courts fail to give the Ca. determination FF&C - the USSCt does not take cert. - D wins on issue - D breaches again - P sues D in California - Which determination has issue preclusive effect?

- P sues D in state court in NY for $1000 - D, who has no connection with NY, defaults - P then sues on the NY judgment in Pa. state court, where D has $500 of assets - The Pa. state cts wrongly conclude that there was PJ over D in NY and thus that the NY judgment is valid - The USSCt refuses cert - P then sues on the NY judgment in Ca. state ct, where D has $500 of assets - D argues that the NY judgment was invalid - Is D issue precluded?

P sues D for $100,000 in negligence in state court in Cal P sues D for $100,000 in negligence in state court in Cal. The source of PJ is $50,000 of assets D has in Cal. D makes a limited appearance and loses (he is found negligent). P then sues D for the remaining $50,000 in state court in NY, where there is in personam PJ over D. Is D issue precluded from relitigating his negligence?