1 / 17

Questions?

Questions?. Today’s Class, Part I. Appeals Harnden and harmless error. Harnden v. Jayco, Inc. Today’s Class, Part 2. Claim Preclusion/ Res judicata : What is the same claim? Frier v. City of Vandalia. Martino . HYPO.

aloha
Download Presentation

Questions?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Questions?

  2. Today’s Class, Part I • Appeals • Harnden and harmless error.

  3. Harnden v. Jayco, Inc.

  4. Today’s Class, Part 2 • Claim Preclusion/Res judicata: • What is the same claim? • Frier v. City of Vandalia. • Martino.

  5. HYPO Madonna and Prince are involved in a car accident. Madonna sues Prince for damage to her car. After the case has gone to a judgment on the merits, Madonna brings a second lawsuit, basing her claim on the same damage to the same car arising out of the same accident. In his answer to Madonna’s complaint, Prince raises claim preclusion as an affirmative defense. What result?

  6. Frier v. City of Vandalia Main Street – Vandalia, Illinois

  7. Dear Charlie, We towed you car to the local garage. Best, Vandalia Police Dept.

  8. 1963 Ford Falcon 1970 Plymouth Duster Opal GT (1973) 1971 Dodge Van

  9. The Three Frier Lawsuits • Case in Illinois state court for replevin of two cars. This case is voluntarily dismissed when he gets those cars back. • Case in Illinois state court for replevin that is litigated on the merits. Frier loses. • Case in federal district court for violation of constitutional rights that is dismissed by district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

  10. HYPO Madonna and Prince are involved in a car accident. Madonna sues Prince for damage to her car. After the case has gone to judgment, Madonna brings a second suit, basing her claim on the same damage to the same car arising out of the same accident. In his answer to Madonna’s complaint, Prince raises claim preclusion as an affirmative defense. What result?

  11. “The safest course is to raise it, lest you waive it.”

  12. Winning v. Losing (A Slight Change of the Facts of Frier) • Case in Illinois state court for replevin of two cars that is voluntarily dismissed after he gets the cars back. • Case in Illinois state court for replevin that is litigated on the merits that Frierwins. • Case in federal district court for violation of constitutional rights that is dismissed by district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Assuming Frier has stated a claim in federal district court, does the appellate court’s claim preclusion analysis change because Frier won in the Illinois state court?

  13. The Four General Prerequisites for Claim Preclusion • There needs to be a final judgment; • The final judgment must be “on the merits”; • The “claims” must be the same in the first and second suits; and • The parties in the second action have to be the same as the parties in the first action.

  14. 1. The doctrine of claim preclusion bars the same claim from being re-litigated if the second claim arises out of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out which the first claim arose. 2. What factual grouping constitutes a “transaction”, and what grouping constitute a “series”, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they from a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 (Yeazell p. 674).

More Related