Civil Procedure Outline

• Doctrine of Estoppel by Adjudication/Former Adjudication:

o Definition: System of how often you can retry something. The effect of a judgment on subsequent litigation

o Purpose: to impel parties to consolidate all closely related matters into one suit in order to prevent the oppression of defendants

o Policy:

o If didn't have system:

 People would sue back and forth.

 Sue again if didn't like outcome

o You need this doctrine to make the system work.

o This is a concept of finality. To make the system work the judgments have to be enforceable but have to be immune from attack.

o Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion: litigation of a claim precludes a P from litigating everything that was litigated and anything that could be litigated.

o In a claim based state you would need to bring any and all claims that arise out of that same transaction. ("Same Transaction Rule")

 Under FRCP Rule 8(a) the pleading short and plain statement of claim that shows pleader entitled to relief. (No where does it mention facts

 In federal courts you don't have to plead facts. You can plead conclusions.

 Compulsory joinder is implied. If you fail to join any claim arising out of the transaction, that claim is waived.

 This is so, eventhough it is not a federal rule. (This is not Rule 18)

o In a code based state the pleading must be based on the facts constituting your cause of action. ("Same Evidence Rule")

 Therefore a second lawsuit is only precluded if it is litigated on the same evidence as the first lawsuit. ("Same Evidence Rule")

o Rush v. City of Maple Heights (Motorcycle accident. 1st suit re property damages, 2nd suit re personal injury damages. She is saying issue preclusion re: issue of negligence and cause b/c decided in 1st lawsuit. City says claim preclusion b/c arose out of the same transaction. She argued no under Vasu which says property and personal injury claims are separate cause of action.

o Ct adopts majority rule and overrule Vasu saying...