Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules? Forum

[Anomaly]

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

[Transferthrowaway]

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

[Anomaly]

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

[booboo]

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]

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.