Civ Pro-Spring CK

Civ Pro-Spring CK - CIVIL PROCEDURE SPRING Breakfast with...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CIVIL PROCEDURE SPRING – Breakfast with Oggie Frier v City of Vandalia City towed four of Frier’s cars which were parked illegally blocking traffic. He filed suits on an action of replevin to get his cars, claiming the city did not have the right to tow his cars. He lost the suit as the court found that the city did have the right to tow his cars. He then filed in Federal court complaining that his 14 th Amendment right of Due process was violated since he was not given a prompt hearing and tried to get equitable relief and compensatory as well as punitive damages. I – Was the second suit barred by Res Judicata? R – A suit will be barred by claim preclusion if it arises out of the same core of operative facts, even if the theory of relief is different for the second suit. A – Here there is a second suit arising out the the same core of operative facts, so the court did not need to address the constitutional issue since the claim was barred. Under Ill law it did not matter that there were only two cars were rendered judgment in the first suit but four were challenged in the second suit. Concurrence – State of IL has always taken the narrower approach to the claim preclusion. The court should not go to the broader transactional test. Frier should have raised his objections to the seizure in the first suit. The due process claim requires an entirely different factual showing than the replevin case. Evidentiary differences would exist, but dut to the uncontested facts that he could have recovered the without a due process violation. LS#1- Replevin suit- Lost by Π (if he brought replevin again – precluded under same writ #1(above), if he brought conversion – precluded under same cause of action #2, if he brought Civ Rights COA –precluded under same transaction #3. LS#2 - §1983 Civil Rights – All these are focused at getting back his car. So if they are similar transactions they would be barred under Same Transaction #3. Splitting of Relief – Note 7 p 808 Common – contract and quasi K Arithmetical splitting – neck and back injury or property and PI claim Alternaive or Supplemental remedy – Frier type, additional damages. Note 9 on 809.- ******Preclusion does not mean that all people injured in a car accident must sue the Δ in the same suit. Martino v McDonald s Martino and Mcdonalds entered into a franchise K which had a clause prohibiting Martino’s family from opening a competing fast food store. Martino’s son bought a hamburger joint which violated the K. McD’s sued and won by a consent judgment before Martino filed an answer. Martino brought a new suit alleging that the K was a violation of the Sherman anti trust act. McD’s claimed 2 defenses, Rule 13a barred the action and it was also precluded by res judicata.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/15/2008 for the course CIV PROCED II taught by Professor Gooden during the Spring '08 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 38

Civ Pro-Spring CK - CIVIL PROCEDURE SPRING Breakfast with...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online