Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

Postby Anomaly » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:22 pm

And what if we abandoned the compulsory counterclaim rule in federal court? Discuss/link me to related law review article please.

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

Postby Transferthrowaway » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:26 pm

Efficiency vs. allowing the plaintiff to be the architect of his suit + a bunch of other stuff. hth.

Anomaly
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Re: Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

Postby Anomaly » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:43 pm

Yeah it does thanks. Do you think a discussion of claim/issue preclusion is relevant?

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

Postby booboo » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:14 pm

Anomaly wrote:Yeah it does thanks. Do you think a discussion of claim/issue preclusion is relevant?


I'd say yes. Some issues may have been decided and thus if the counterclaim isn't filed at the time of the suit, the issues which already have been adjudicated will not longer have the ability to be brought at a later time in court.

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?

Postby Transferthrowaway » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:59 pm

booboo wrote:
Anomaly wrote:Yeah it does thanks. Do you think a discussion of claim/issue preclusion is relevant?


I'd say yes. Some issues may have been decided and thus if the counterclaim isn't filed at the time of the suit, the issues which already have been adjudicated will not longer have the ability to be brought at a later time in court.


A general goal of joinder is to promote consistency and efficiency by reducing a multiplicity of suits. A proponent of a system that doesn't have compulsory counterclaim rules may want to make the argument that collateral estoppel will keep the parties in subsequent suits from relitigating an issue. But the problem with is that idea is that there is the potential for collateral estoppel to increase satellite litigation in subsequent suits between the parties about whether CE should apply to a particular issue (was it actually litigated in the first case? Was it essential to the judgment in the previous action?, etc.)

I'm sure there are a ton of other considerations (docket management, other efficiency issues) but I'm way rusty on anything civ pro-related. I hope that helps get you started thinking about it though.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 10 guests