Same parties btwn 1st and 2nd suits ii same claim is

This preview shows 25 out of 27 pages.

Same parties btwn 1st and 2nd suits ii. Same claim is either brought again, (same claim using a Res2d “transactional” standard) or iii. Final judgment on all parties’ claims iv. Final judgment on the merits 2. Cases a. Manego v. Board of Trade: may a party assert a separate distinct later claim even though the material facts are almost identical? i. Rule: one may not bring another, subsequent suit after a final judgment, that, while based in another COA, involves essentially the same facts b. Federated Dept. Stores v. Moitie: can a party re-litigate a claim that was dispensed of in a prior appeal that they chose not to join? i. Rule: RJ bars re-litigation of an un-appealed adverse judgment where other plaintiffs in similar actions against a common ∆ successfully appealed against them 3. Preclusion in state-federal court adjudications & full faith and credit: 28 U.S.C. 1738 a. Article IV § 1 (FF&C clause): Speaks to effect of state court judgments in another state. i. 28 U.S.C. § 1738: Implementing legislation for Article IV §1. Goes further: FF & C shall be given in every court w/in U.S. as they have in state where it was made. State and federal courts must recognize state court judgments. b. Compels the courts of each state to give the same effect to judgments from other states that would be given to judgments from within the state. i. Each state must apply the same rules of merger, bar, collateral estoppel as the rendering state would apply. ii. Looks to protect the litigants’ expectations. c. Dictates what should be done when the rendering court and recognizing court are: i. State then State (or) ii. State then Federal (c) Doesn’t specifically address a fed to state recognition which has created problems (see Semtek) (a) The general rule is that the federal court must apply the preclusionary law of the rendering state. d. Analysis steps when applying a state decision to a subsequent federal crt: i. A court of limited jurisdiction will bind a court of broader jurisdiction unless: (a) The state has a jurisdictional competence rule forces litigants to bring the case in the forum of widest possible competence, or (b) The federal claim has an implied repeal of §1738 25
Image of page 25

Subscribe to view the full document.

e. Cases i. Marresse v. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons: What are the standards for preclusive effects when the rendering crt is a state crt and the recognizing one is a federal crt? (a) Rule: a state crt judgment’s preclusive effect on a federal anti-trust claim is governed by the law of the state where that 1st judgment was rendered based upon whether the rendering crt has rules limiting jurisdictional competency, and if not, whether there is an implied repeal of §1738 in the federal statute controlling the case ii. Matsushita v. Epstein: what effect of a settlement in a state forum upon a federal appeal (a) Rule: A local settlement will create a RJ preclusion if the analysis of Marresse is satisfied (look to see if jurisdictional comp rule [no], look for implied 1738 repeal) iii. Baker v. GM: Are the preclusive effects of another state’s decision in an injunction binding?
Image of page 26
Image of page 27
You've reached the end of this preview.
  • Spring '10
  • Arkin
  • Fed, Personal jurisdiction

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern