redblueyellow wrote:a male human wrote:redblueyellow wrote:For Question 5 - July, 2009 (Remedies, Civ Pro, Ethics), I have a question about this particular paragraph/question:
"Thereafter, Paul, one of the neighbors and a plaintiff in the state court case, separately
retained Lawyer and filed an application for a permanent injunction against Diane in
federal court asserting the same causes of action and requesting the same relief as in
the state court case. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue were
proper. The federal court granted Diane’s motion to dismiss Paul’s federal court
application on the basis of preclusion.
Question 2. Was the federal court’s denial of Paul’s application for a permanent injunction
correct? Discuss. Do not address substantive property or riparian rights."
Without the underlined sentence, would you still have analyzed this question under Res Judicata or would you have done a write up for permanent injunction (as in #1 which I did not post here)? In other words, I'm trying to see if that question 2 only hinged on res judicata solely because of the underlined sentence, or if it was also hinted at during the rest of the paragraph (I don't think it was).
Which part of the facts without the underlined part would trigger a rule element for res judicata?
Probably the part about the same causes of action and same relief, I suppose.
Hmm I see. I guess I'm not sure res judicata would be a big issue even with the underlined portion, unless a question asked whether that dismissal under preclusion was proper. Civ pro calls usually identify the main issue for you.
However, you'll raise res judicata if there are other relevant facts elsewhere.
If you were limited to the facts I see, I would kind of raise it and wave it away with a quick conclusion based on a presumption and also place the discussion after more significant issues. Generally, the fewer rule elements the facts trigger for an issue, the less important it is.