Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
JDanger007
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:41 pm

Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby JDanger007 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:50 am

Hey guys, struggling with Issue preclusion at the moment.

1. I am trying very hard to keep the rings of issue and claim separate however to me they overlap far too much as to what constitutes one or the other. For instance anything that I think of as an issue, i can also see the claim based on it too. Does anyone have a way to help me simplify something that should not be as challenging as I know that I am making it?

2. This question is just about issue preclusion versus non-mutual issue preclusion. When do you use one test versus the other? It seems to me that offensive as a whole is about the plaintiff preventing a defendant from bringing an issue that they could have easily joined in the first case, barring it is unfair to defendant. However with just issue preclusion, it feels like in a way you are trying to do the same sort of thing. What am i missing? Thank you so much in advance.

JDanger007
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby JDanger007 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:48 am

Bumping for a response since I posted so late last night.

Traynor Brah
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:23 pm

Re: Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby Traynor Brah » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:02 am

JDanger007 wrote:Hey guys, struggling with Issue preclusion at the moment.

1. I am trying very hard to keep the rings of issue and claim separate however to me they overlap far too much as to what constitutes one or the other. For instance anything that I think of as an issue, i can also see the claim based on it too. Does anyone have a way to help me simplify something that should not be as challenging as I know that I am making it?

2. This question is just about issue preclusion versus non-mutual issue preclusion. When do you use one test versus the other? It seems to me that offensive as a whole is about the plaintiff preventing a defendant from bringing an issue that they could have easily joined in the first case, barring it is unfair to defendant. However with just issue preclusion, it feels like in a way you are trying to do the same sort of thing. What am i missing? Thank you so much in advance.

FYI we have a thread in this forum for posting these kind of questions. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=239397

User avatar
Avian
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby Avian » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:15 am

From what I remember of CivPro...

1. It might be more helpful to approach the question by determining whether each test applies rather than trying to think about whether something is an issue or a claim. That analysis is always going to overlap to some degree because every lawsuit makes a claim and every claim raises issues.

Claim preclusion: Valid and final judgment on the merits precludes relitigation on the same claim between the same parties.

What you're looking for here is whether there was a valid and final judgment on the merits and a party is trying to bring another case that arises out of the same transaction (majority test). The reasoning behind this rule is that we shouldn't allow someone to bring a case arising from the same transaction just because they lost and because the liberal pleading rules allow people to bring almost any conceivable claim in the original action.

Issue preclusion: An identical issue of fact or law has been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment and that determination is essential to the judgment.

What you're looking for here is whether someone is trying to bind a party based on an issue that was previously decided. Unlike claim preclusion which prevents a party from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same transaction, issue preclusion is to stop someone from trying to relitigate an issue that was already decided.

2. Non-mutual issue preclusion is different from regular issue preclusion because it is non-mutual, meaning that only one party was involved in the original lawsuit. The reason the analysis is different particularly with offensive non-mutual issue preclusion is because there is the possibility that it would be unfair to bind the defendant. Of course in both cases you're trying to do the same thing, bind someone based on an issue decided in a previous case, but the fact that it is not the same parties raises additional concerns.

I hope that helps, if it wasn't clear or if you have more questions feel free to ask.

JDanger007
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby JDanger007 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:30 am

Thanks, just do not use the site very often so still working that out. appreciate it!

JDanger007
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: Civil Procedure- 2 quick preclusion questions

Postby JDanger007 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:32 am

Avian wrote:From what I remember of CivPro...

1. It might be more helpful to approach the question by determining whether each test applies rather than trying to think about whether something is an issue or a claim. That analysis is always going to overlap to some degree because every lawsuit makes a claim and every claim raises issues.

Claim preclusion: Valid and final judgment on the merits precludes relitigation on the same claim between the same parties.

What you're looking for here is whether there was a valid and final judgment on the merits and a party is trying to bring another case that arises out of the same transaction (majority test). The reasoning behind this rule is that we shouldn't allow someone to bring a case arising from the same transaction just because they lost and because the liberal pleading rules allow people to bring almost any conceivable claim in the original action.

Issue preclusion: An identical issue of fact or law has been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment and that determination is essential to the judgment.

What you're looking for here is whether someone is trying to bind a party based on an issue that was previously decided. Unlike claim preclusion which prevents a party from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same transaction, issue preclusion is to stop someone from trying to relitigate an issue that was already decided.

2. Non-mutual issue preclusion is different from regular issue preclusion because it is non-mutual, meaning that only one party was involved in the original lawsuit. The reason the analysis is different particularly with offensive non-mutual issue preclusion is because there is the possibility that it would be unfair to bind the defendant. Of course in both cases you're trying to do the same thing, bind someone based on an issue decided in a previous case, but the fact that it is not the same parties raises additional concerns.

I hope that helps, if it wasn't clear or if you have more questions feel free to ask.




Thank you very helpful.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests