Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Reasoning:
There is a pre-eminent generalization that everyone has the right to an attorney. It is only
reserved for people in big trouble who risk the chance of losing personal liberty
Interest of the plaintiff: Huge! She doesnt want to have her son taken away
Interest of the government: they mostly care about time and money
Concern for whether the trial will result in an erroneous decision and obstruct rights
o efficiency
o accuracy
o fairness
Every issue needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case circumstance
There is overwhelming evidence that regardless of what Lassiter says, she didnt really care
about her son. Because of this, it wouldnt matter if she had a lawyer or not
Specifically that the private interests, government interests and the risk that the procedures in
place may provide erroneous outcomes be weighed to determine whether it would necessitate the
assistance of counsel. But the Court will weight those factors case-by-case, and in this case there
was reason to believe that Petitioner would have received little help from counsel and that there
was no damage done in her lack of counsel.
Dissent: Taking someones child is a unique kind of deprivation. Regardless of if the case would
have come out the same whether Lassiter had a judge or not, it does not mean that due process
should be denied.
Correctly used Eldridge 3-factor test
1. believed family matters are a fundamental liberty interest
2. liberty interests at stake in PT undeniably require procedural protection
3. states interest cant be greater than that of a person threatened by PT
Rule: There is no absolute right to an attorney. Every case needs to be looked at individually.
Eldridge 3 factors
1. The interests of the individual in retaining their property, and the injury threatened by the
official action
2. The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards;
3. The costs and administrative burden of the additional process, and the interests of the
government in efficient adjudication
A. Provisional relief
Equitable remedies: Can be attained before any decision is made on claim (no
juries for equitable claims)
Invoked for two reasons:
o To secure a judgment (make sure plaintiff gets compensation awarded
and could put pressure on someone to settle)
o To stop someone from continuing activity or to preserve the status quo
Rule 65 (Objective of maintaining status quo)
o Preliminary Injunction
Notice to other side and hearing applies unless there is immediate
irreparable harm
In ruling on preliminary injunction, court will consider:
If injunction will harm other side
If its in best public interest
How likely P is to succeed on claims
Irreparable harm suffered by P if there isnt a preliminary
injunction
o Temporary Restraining Order
Filed at same time that preliminary injunction is filed
Has a lifespan of no more than 10 days unless it is extended
Notice and hearing applies unless P shows immediate and
irreparable injury that will occur if wait for hearing
had been reliant on Plaintiff for cash infusion prior to the termination. Plaintiff brought an action
for breach of contract and successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Defendant to
enforce the contract.
Issue. The issue is whether the preliminary injunction granted to Plaintiff should be upheld.
Held. The court implemented a formula, P x Hp > (1-P) X Hd, that basically restated the
traditional balancing factors in a mathematical format. The court then affirmed the injunction and
supported the decision by noting the high probability of Plaintiffs success at trial and the lack of
significant hardship to Defendant versus the hardship to Plaintiff. The court still applied hardship
to the public (which was considered hardship for Defendant for the sake of the formula) and
concluded that the left side of the equation was greater (favored Plaintiffs side).
Dissent. The dissenting judge favors the traditional four-prong test for granting preliminary
injunctions (irreparable harm and no other remedy as equitable; the irreparable harm outweighs
the other party; likelihood of success; and no danger to public interest) rather than the proposed
formula.
Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co.
Facts:
- Walgreens in mall owned by Sara Creek
- lease stipulates no other pharmacy can have lease in mall
- malls anchor tenant going out of business & Creek wants to bring in PharMor
- Walgreens sued for breach of K; asked for injunction against Creek to least to
PharMor
Rule:
- Ordinarily money; this case money not appropriate b/c its impossible to
calculate
- The burden is to show that damages are inadequate (for permanent injunction),
not that the denial of the injunction will work irreparable harm (thats for a preliminary
injunction)
Reasoning: Substituting injunction for damages is beneficial:
1. shifts burden of determining cost of Ds conduct from court to parties
2. prices & costs are more accurately determined by market than gov
2. Enforcement of equitable relief = use cts contempt power
a. Civil contempt
- to compel to do something
- used to impel the D to comply with the ct order
- imprisonment as a result; comply to stay out of jail (e.g. pay child
support)
- fine would be strange since equitable relief made money damages not
adequate
- std of proof > preponderance of evidence
b. Criminal contempt
- broke court order and willful about it
- to punish (by fine and/or imprisonment)
- serve your time
- to give court respect (not so much relief for the P)
whether $ damages would provide inadequate relief for P if wins; money wont help
irreparable harm will occur if not granted
likelihood P will prevail on merits (most important factor)
scope & irreparability of harm D will suffer if relief is wrongly granted
extent to which granting an injunction would harm public interest
4. Rule 65(b) = TRO
- maintaining the status quo
- ex parte decision; does not require notice
- irreparable harm must be argued; something bad is going to happen if the court
doesnt issue the restraining order (e.g. bodily harm, child custody, foreclosure)
- immediate protection while wait for hearing on preliminary injunction
- 10 days with extension > can turn into preliminary then permanent
- e.g. butcher across my property line; he might kill it; so TRO
B. Final relief
1. Equitable relief
- only granted when money damages would not be adequate
- equitable relief awarded by judge; money damages usu. awarded by jury
a. Rule 57 = Declaratory judgment
- cts clarification of the law as applied to the undisputed facts presented
by litigants
- issues an opinion declaring rights of parties involved
b. Rule = Consent decrees
- parties decide on a solution, the ct monitors agreement, and can be
dissolved by motion or sunset
- e.g. prison litigation > not giving dental to prisoners
- some ongoing for as long as 30 years; have to do it piece by piece
- can arise out of violations of Constitutional rights, which supercede even
legislation
c. Rule 65 = Permanent injunction
whether $ damages would provide inadequate relief
whether P has shown risk of irreparable injury
scope & irreparability of harm D will suffer if relief is wrongly granted
extent to which granting an injunction would harm public interest
- inquiry leading to it doesnt involve predicting likelihood of Ps success on merits b/c
merits already decide; injunction granted on hearing on the merits
Carey v. Piphus (1978)
Facts:
- students suspended for violating school rules
- not given due process prior to suspension
42 U.S.C. 1983: a person who deprives someone of his rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law
Rule:
- nominal damages are most that can be awarded in the absence of proof of injury
- must prove actual injury from denial of due process in order to obtain
remedy
Ruling:
- in order to receive punitive damages, the students needed to show that the
officials acted with malicious intent
- mental & emotional distress are covered under 1983, but w/o actually proving
injury, it cant be assumed that the injury is so great
Due process wasnt given, but damages werent proved, so heres $1
2) compensatory
- seek to return P to position enjoyed before the harm
- e.g. medical bills, pain & suffering, loss of wages, fix property that was
damaged
Ex: Carpenter
3) punitive
- further monetary relief seems appropriate to deter future wrongful
conduct and to express public disapproval of injuring behavior
*Guideposts to clarify what constitutes unconstitutional excessiveness in
punitive damage awards:
1- how reprehensible is the Ds conduct?
2- ratio of the award to actual or potential harm inflicted
3- a comparison of the award to civil or criminal penalties that could be
imposed for comparable misconduct
Ex: Carpenter
Enforcement of money damages:
1. Secure a judgment
2. Docket it with the clerks office
C. Settlement
- a legally enforceable agreement, usually involving a payment from D to P, in which P
agrees not to pursue the claim further
E. Contempt
you can violate an ordinance but not an order
you can violate the statute or ordinance but NOT when the ct orders you not to
Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967)
Facts:
- violated injunction at march
Collateral Bar Rule = when violating a cts contempt order, youre barred from challenging
underlying statute
Finality and Preclusion
II.
Claim Preclusion/res judicata
Claim Preclusion prohibits P from splitting up claims that arise from common
nucleus of operative fact
Elements:
o (1) Final and valid judgment on the merits
o (2) Second lawsuit arises out of same claim as first lawsuit
o (3) Parties are the same or are in privity
Policy:
o To avoid wasting judicial resources
o So D doesnt have to defend case again
o So P cannot file same claim until she finds a sympathetic jury
o To avoid inconsistent results
If claims involve different transactions, P doesnt have to join claims (trying
cases separately would not repetition of same facts and evidence)
Claim preclusion usually results in summary judgment
Two moments in course of lawsuit to keep claim preclusion in mind:
o When constructing complaint: Need to make sure to include all issues that
raise out of one claim to avoid preclusion later on
o If theres a second lawsuit filed: Ds lawyer has to be aware of claim
preclusion to raise it as a defense
Final and valid judgment on the merits
o Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, non joinder, misjoinder
is not. Dismissal with prejudice is. (Rule 41(b))
o Other judgments, such as motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
with prejudice, SJ, will be judgments that have preclusive effect
Second lawsuit arises out of same claim as first lawsuit:
o Fundamental question, has the party had the opportunity for their day in
court, to argue the merits of the case?
o Factors to consider when determining whether lawsuit arises out of same
claim as first
Natural grouping of common nucleus of operative facts
(considering time, space, origin, motivation, whether they form a
convenient trial unit)
o When P comes upon new evidence:
Rule 60 gives the court power to relieve a party of a judgment on a
number of grounds; one of these is new evidence. It is at judges
discretion and you probably wont win if judge finds that you
should have originally found the evidence. There is also a 1 year
time limit.
o Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company (F.2d, 7th Cir. 1989)
Asserts that transaction, not legal claim or theory, matters when
determining claim preclusion (common nucleus of operative facts
idea)
When new facts are found, court has right to presume that it P has
done his legal and factual homework, couldve taken advantage of
amendment rules
FRCP are designed to allow these claims to be brought together
(joinder +13) so claim preclusion provides motivation to join them
o Heacock v. Heacock (SJC 1998)
Divorce action where Mrs. Heacock makes claims of violence Mr.
Heacock asserted against her in support of reasons for divorce
Taylor v Sturgell, two dif parties litigated the same issue & were represented by the same
attorney
The court held that such nonparty preclusion runs up against the deep-rooted historic tradition
that everyone should have his own day in court.
Virtual representation should only be applied rarely and under certain exceptions to the general
rule, none of which the Court found applicable in this case.
Preclusive effect of prior ct judgment is based on federal common law dont look to state law
to see if this is allowed
Adequate representation interest of a nonparty and representative must be aligned -ex:
homeowners association could be litigating for or against homeowners
Rule against nonparty preclusion is subject to the following exceptions (c.e is justified
when:) (take a categorical approach)
1. A person who agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between
others is bound in accordance with the terms of his agreement (non party can agree to be
bound by prior decision)
2. Justified based on a variety of pre-existing substantive legal relationships between the
person to be bound and a party to the judgment (certain relationships where it makes
sense to bind a nonparty to a prior judgment like in property cases)
3. In certain limited circumstances, a nonparty may be bound by a judgment because she
was adequately represented by someone with the same interests who was a party to the
suit (nonparty was adequately represented by a party with the same interests in the prior
lawsuit; ex: class action)
4. Bound if she assumed control over the litigation in which the judgment was rendered (not
a formal party in the litigation but the nonparty controls the prior proceeding)
5. A party bound by a judgment may not avoid its preclusive force by relitigating through a
proxy. Preclusion is thus in order when a person who did not participate in a litigation
later brings suit as the designated representative of a person who was a party to the prior
adjudication.
6. In certain circumstances a special statutory scheme may expressly foreclose successive
litigation by nonlitigants if the scheme is otherwise consistent with due process. (ex:
bankruptcy & probate proceedings)
Simplified
(1) A nonparty may agree to be bound by a judgment
(2) Privity may justify preclusion of a nonparty
(3) Nonparty interests represented by party: class actions, trustees, guardians
(4) Nonparty whos assumed control over lawsuit
(5) Nonparty litigated suit via proxy to avoid preclusion
(6) Special statutory schemes: bankruptcy, other suits brought on behalf of public
Consider: A partys representation of a nonparty is adequate for preclusion purposes only if, at a
minimum:
III.
o Deals with non-mutual, offensive issue preclusion: Can a litigant who was
not a party to a prior judgment use the previous judgment offensively to
prevent D from re-litigating issues resolved in earlier proceeding?
o First action was seeking injunction decided by a bench trial. Second
action was a damages action, so there was a right to a jury trial
o Issues:
Can preclusion be used when Parklane would be prevented from
having jury trial with respect to 7th amendment?
Mutuality: P wasnt involved in first lawsuit, but is trying to use
issue preclusion against D who had issue decided against him in
prior action. Should offensive use of issue preclusion be allowed?
o Offensive vs. Defensive issue preclusion:
Supreme Court has already held that mutuality not needed for
defensive use of issue preclusion, as decided in Blonder-Tongue,
but court should still be conscious of unfairness
Defensive can be routinely invoked without there being problems
with denying anyone day in court
Court is hesitant to allow offensive, non-mutual issue preclusion
Problems with offensive:
Wait and see problem: Would result in more litigation, as Ps
would be able to wait and see what happens in earlier litigation
because success of one P in earlier litigation would allow later
Ps to piggyback off of decisions
Unfairness to Ds: There might be a lack of incentive to
vigorously defend claim in earlier litigation; there might be
more expansive discovery opportunities in second litigation
o In these cases, there is a tension between desire for efficiency and finality
and respect for jury
o Rehnquists dissent:
Says that it is unfair to apply doctrine of collateral estoppel where
party who is sought to be estopped has not had an opportunity to have
facts determined by a jury
Focused on 7th amendment right to a jury
o Approaching non-mutual issue preclusion problems:
Is action a defensive or offensive one?
If offensive trial judge should use discretion, asking:
Would offensive be motivated by wait and see P?
Could P have easily joined in first lawsuit?
Would use of preclusion be unfair to Ds, considering additional
procedural opportunities, lack of incentive in first action?
Inter-jurisdictional Preclusion
o Preclusion can operate between state and federal court, between criminal
and civil, between state courts
o State to State:
Stare Decis (if legal ruling about what law meant), precedent
would apply in second case)
o 2. City of Cleveland Ps lost sex discrimination lawsuit. Can they bring a
second lawsuit alleging race discrimination?
Claims came out of same nucleus of operative facts, selection
process they are claiming about is same. Parties are same. Race
discrimination claim could have and should have brought action in
first they cannot bring second action
o 3. Ms. Burrell (owner of Jeep) files lawsuit against Randall Dee for
property damage against Jeep and recovers for $2000which is the
maximum that can be recovered in small claims court. Three months later,
she files in Superior Court for more substantial damages for physical
injuries.
She had choice where to file first claim she shouldve brought in
both claims in superior court
o 4. Carpenter filed in superior court against Lowell for failure of police
officers to warn of modifications. Case dismissed because of statute that
says that municipalities cannot be sued because not responsible for its
employees. File judgment, no appeal. Later, statute overruled saying
municipalities could be sued. Can she sue again?
No. There was a final judgment on the merits. It was decided
under law at the time.
Rule 60(b): provides for relief from judgment under range of
circumstances because of newly discovered evidence, among other
reasons
If you got precluded, you cant jump into someone elses claim to get around it
(Federated Dept. Stores v. Moitie, p. 1124)
1. Better to stick around and appeal something than start the claim over in a different
court
which will use the preclusion
Federal courts must comply with state determinations of preclusion (Allen v. McCurry, p.
1192; Semtek v. Lockheed Martin, p. 1198)
1. Federal courts cant be more preclusive than their state courts
2. Look at how state court treats statute of limitations preclusions (Semtek)
Class Actions
I.
CLASS ACTIONS
A. CLASS CERTIFICATION
a. Rule 23: Class Action
1. Requires PJ, SMJ, and venue like any other case
2. 2005 Amendments: federal juris. will exist when there is minimal
diversity and when the total amount of the class members claims
exceeds $5 million
3. 23(a) factors for certification:
Erie Doctrine
In federal diversity cases, there is a question of whether state or federal law
applies
Vertical choice: between state and federal
Horizontal choice: deciding which state law to apply
Federal question cases: Easy to decide what law to apply because Article 6th
(supremacy clause of
Constitution) makes it clear that even state courts
have to apply federal law
Diversity Cases: What law does fed. court apply to decide diversity cases?
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tomkins (U.S. 1938)
o Facts and Procedure: P was walking along pathway along railroad when
freight train operated by Erie Railroad Co came by and hit him (open door
or something). P filed suit in federal court for southern New York because
Erie was incorporated in that state
o If state law applied, P might not be able to recover because of PA
trespassing law
o Issue: Whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of
Penn. common law
o Rules of Decision Act: Laws of several states shall be regarded as rules of
decision in courts of US in cases where they apply unless Constitution,
treaties, or statutes of U.S. say otherwise.
o Swift v. Tyson was precedent before this.
Interpreted Rules of Decision act to mean that only laws and not
judicial decisions applied Courts exercising jurisdiction on
ground of diversity of citizenship need not apply unwritten state
law as declared by the highest court and that federal courts could
decide what law is
Goal was to create uniform general law in federal court
This allowed corporations to avail itself to federal law by
reincorporating in another state and generally introduced
discrimination to in state Ds, promoted forum shopping
This conflicted with Constitutional rights of states to apply its law
except in matters governed by federal Constitution or Acts of
Congress. Constitution doesnt give power to Congress to institute
general tort laws or general contract law if not given to
Congress, also not given to federal courts.
o Holding: Except in matters governed by constitution or acts of congress,
the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. Any source of law,
whether by statute or common law, is state law. There is no general federal
common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of
common law applicable in a state whether they be local or general, be they
commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the
constitution purports to confer such a power upon federal courts.
o Twin aims of Erie: Prevent forum shopping and inequitable distribution
of the law (by alleviating unfairness to instate Ps and Ds)
o Erie was decided in the same year that the FRCP were enacted. This
resulted in conflict between state rule and FRCP
o How should a court decide if State Supreme Court hasnt decided on an
issue (trespassing, for example)?
Federal court has to predict how the state court would resolve an
ambiguity in state law, using trial and appellate court decisions,
relevant case law from other jurisdictions, etc.
Issue is how aggressive federal court should be in anticipating
where state law is going