Direct estoppel

Last updated

The doctrine of direct estoppel prevents a party to litigation from relitigating an issue that was decided against that party. [1] Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [3] Issue preclusion means that a party in a previous proceeding cannot litigate an identical issue that was adjudicated and had the judgment as an integral part of the overall issue. [4]

Contents

Principle

Direct estoppel can arise in two scenarios: [1]

  1. When a first cause of action is decided on certain grounds and a second cause of action precludes a party from making an argument based on the decided first cause of action.
  2. When a court rules on some causes of action, direct estoppel precludes issues that are common to the causes of actions decided and the ones not decided by the court.

Restatement (First) of Judgments § 45 explains that direct estoppel occurs when: [5]

an issue is actually litigated and determined in an action, the determination is conclusive in any subsequent action between the parties based upon the same cause of action ... The term "direct estoppel" is used in the Restatement of this Subject to indicate that the binding effect of a judgment as to matters actually litigated and determined in one action applies to a subsequent action between the parties based upon the same cause of action, where the plaintiff is not precluded from maintaining such an action by the extinguishment of his cause of action under the rules as to merger and bar.

Direct estoppel arises when a claim is adjudicated and a party wants to litigate the same issue. Direct estoppel also prevents untried claims dismissed on pre-trial motions from being litigated in an appeal. [6] The "party seeking to invoke direct estoppel must show that:

  1. the issue sought to be precluded was raised and litigated in a previous proceeding,
  2. the determination of the issue was a critical and necessary part of the final judgment in a prior trial, and
  3. the issue is the same one decided in the previous trial." [7]

The goal of direct estoppel is to prevent a party from litigating the same cause of action or motion without having new legal or factual issues. [8] Direct estoppel is a judicial procedure instrument that "provide[s] a minimum level of preclusion below which the federal procedural system may not fall without running afoul of the Reexamination Clause." [9] The court will not allow a party to bring an action if the issue raised was heard and a court adjudicated it either in a pre-trial motion or during trial. [8]

Contrast with collateral estoppel

Collateral estoppel is a doctrine that precludes a party from bringing an issue if a determination of law or fact was already made. [10] In a criminal case, a defendant cannot face the same charge in more than one criminal trial. In a civil case, a party cannot re-litigate an issue decided on the merits in a previous action. [11]

Case law

Peare v. Griggs, 8 N.Y.2d 44, (1960)

The courts have used direct estoppel to prevent a party from bringing the same cause of action several times. For example, in Peare v. Griggss, the appellate court reversed a judgment awarded to a widow-plaintiff because the direct estoppel doctrine prevented the plaintiff from receiving damages arising out of the same controversy. The court explained that the widow could not litigate a property damage action in one state and a wrongful death action in another state when both actions arose out of the same facts. As an administratrix of her deceased husband, the widow initiated a property damage action in Virginia because the accident that killed her husband involved a car owned by her. After the widow was unable to obtain damages in Virginia, she commenced a new action in NY for wrongful death. The trial court awarded the widow damages; however, the appellate court reversed. The appellate court explained that even though the cause of actions were filled in different states, they were based on the same facts and there was a common element, the negligence of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. [12] Ultimately, this case is an example that direct estoppel halts plaintiffs who had their day in court from litigating the same case.

Halpern v. Schwartz, 426 F.2d 102, (1970)

The courts have also held that direct estoppel will not prevent a party from litigation an issue that was not adjudicated in a previous cause action if the courts decided the case on several grounds. In Halpern v. Schwartz, the court determined that when a judgment that was based on several and independent grounds, the cause of action can be reconsider for one of the grounds or issues that were not fundamental to the final judgment. The appellant, Halpern asked the court to review the District Court decision that affirmed the bankruptcy court's holding. Halpern opposed the bankruptcy court decision of declaring Schwartz bankrupt. Halpern claimed that Schwartz had transferred valuable bonds and mortgages to her son with the goal to defraud her creditors. The court ultimately held that when a prior judgment was passed on three independent grounds, collateral estoppel could not give effect to the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruling reflects the idea that if a judge based a decision on three independent grounds, each of the three grounds may not obtain the same careful attention that they deserve and a party is entitled to full adjudication. [13]

United States v. Shenberg, 828 F. Supp. 968 (1993)

Direct estoppel can be a tool for defendants to prevent the government from using counts decided already to support a different prosecution. In United States v. Shenberg, the defendants faced 55 counts and after trial, they were convicted of 3 counts only. Subsequently, the prosecutors wanted to use the acquitted counts to support a different prosecution. Ultimately, the court held that direct estoppel prevented the prosecution from issuing the counts already adjudicated to prove different counts. [14] The importance of this decision is that the court held that "direct estoppel applies to a continuing prosecution even if double jeopardy and collateral estoppel do not." [15] Therefore, once a jury partially acquits a defendant, the acquitted counts cannot be brought again in a continuing prosecution. [14]

The principle of direct estoppel can also prevent a court from reconsidering a motion that was denied against a defendant. For example, in Massachusetts, a defendant appealed to the Massachusetts court the decision of the appellate court of denying his motion to reduce the verdict against him. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that direct estoppel prevented the court from ruling on a motion that was decided by the lower court. [16] The decision of the court exemplifies that direct estoppel can prevent a party from bringing the same claim regardless of the procedural vehicle used. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court's rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is the moving party or movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

The Virginia General District Court (GDC) is the lowest level of the Virginia court system, and is the court that most Virginians have contact with. The jurisdiction of the GDC is generally limited to traffic cases and other misdemeanors, civil cases involving amounts of under $25,000. There are 32 GDC districts, each having at least one judge, and each having a clerk of the court and a courthouse with courtroom facilities.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with jury trials in civil matters. The court held that where legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the legal claims must be tried by a jury before the equitable claims can be resolved.

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial. Here, the guarantee against double jeopardy enforceable through the Fifth Amendment provided that where the defendant was acquitted of robbing one victim, the government could not prosecute the criminal defendant in a second trial for a different victim in the same robbery.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court's dismissal of a civil action on the ground that it should be heard in a foreign court, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, does not preclude the plaintiff from filing the same action in a state court that applies different forum non conveniens rules.

United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., was a 2005 Third Circuit antitrust decision in the United States finding that Dentsply, a monopolist manufacturer-supplier of dental supplies, used its exclusive dealing policy to keep rival firms' sales "below the critical level necessary for any rival to pose a real threat to Dentsply's market share,".

Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants. In so ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its 1936 decision in Triplett v. Lowell, which had required mutuality of estoppel to bar such preclusion, and held that the better view was to prevent relitigating if the plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question.

<i>Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that claim preclusion did not apply to a defense that could have been raised in a previous case between two parties when the "common nucleus of operative fact" was different. The case involved a trademark dispute between Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. and Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. over their respective marks involving "Lucky" and the phrase "Get Lucky" respectively.

References

  1. 1 2 § 4418 Issue Preclusion—Within a Single Claim: Direct Estoppel, 18 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 4418 (3d ed.)
  2. ↑ Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, (1984).
  3. ↑ INTRODUCTION, 2019A TXCLE-AIP 2 INTRO, 2019 WL 8275463
  4. ↑ BACKGROUND, 2019A TXCLE-AIP 2-I, 2019 WL 8275394
  5. ↑ Restatement (First) of Judgments § 45 (1942)
  6. ↑ DuChateau v. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., 713 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2013).
  7. ↑ People v. Jefferson, 2022 Ill. App. 5th 200185 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
  8. 1 2 Com. v. Rodriguez, 443 Mass. 707 (2005).
  9. ↑ Patrick Woolley, Mass Tort Litigation and the Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 499, 523 (1998).
  10. ↑ Matthew Faust, Collateral Damage: When Should the Determinations of Administrative Adjudications Have Collateral Estoppel Effect in Subsequent Adjudications?, 84 Fordham L. Rev. 2879 (2016).
  11. ↑ "collateral estoppel". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2023-03-31.
  12. ↑ Peare v. Griggs, 8 N.Y.2d 44, (1960).
  13. ↑ Halpern v. Schwartz, 426 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1970).
  14. 1 2 United States v. Shenberg, 828 F. Supp. 968 (1993)
  15. ↑ United States v. Shenberg, 828 F. Supp. 968, 970 (1993).
  16. ↑ Staff, Mass Lawyers Weekly (2021-09-20). "Criminal – Direct estoppel – Rule 25(b)(2) | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly" . Retrieved 2023-03-26.
  17. ↑ "Commonwealth v. Arias, 13-P-728 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2023-03-26.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.