Why do some states not have compulsory counterclaim rules?
Posted: 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.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172370
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.Anomaly wrote:Yeah it does thanks. Do you think a discussion of claim/issue preclusion is relevant?
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.)booboo wrote: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.Anomaly wrote:Yeah it does thanks. Do you think a discussion of claim/issue preclusion is relevant?