The primary difference between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence is:
In considering the summary judgment record, what attitude should the court adopt in evaluating the materials offered?
Smith sues Jones for negligence and assault resulting from a car accident, where Jones hit Smith with his car as Smith was crossing the street. The case goes to trial and both issues are fully litigated. The court finds for Smith on the negligence issue, but does not rule in the assault issue. Collateral estoppel will bar Smith from relitigating the assault issue in a second lawsuit because both issues arose from the same incident, and because both sides were able to fully litigate both issues in court and had an opportunity to be heard in this first case.
The issue was not actually decided, as is a requirement for collateral estoppels to attach
Charley, Donald, and Mark met to finalize the formation of a joint venture to obtain a Mini Cooper dealership in New Britan, Connecticuit. Unfortunately, the meeting went from bad to worse, with all of the parties blaming the others for the collapse of the deal. Donald and Mark stormed out immediately, heading for their cars while fuming about the meeting. Charley followed several minutes later, still preoccupied over what he saw as the lack of vision of his business partners. No one is quite sure what happened next, but the result was a serious accident in the parking lot in which Charley, while waling to his car, was caught between Mark and Donald’s cars as they collided. Charley was seriously injured. Donald and Mark escaped without physical injury, but both suffered significant damage to their cars. Charley v. Donald v. Mark goes to trial including the following claims: Charley v Donald for negligence (personal injuries) Donald v. Charley for negligence (damage to car)(counterclaim) Donald v. Mark for negligence (damage to car) and breach of contract Mark v.
Donald for negligence (damage to car) and breach of contract The court enters judgment for Donald on his negligence claim against Mark, based on the jury’s findings that the accident was caused 100% by Mark’s negligence. It entered a take nothing judgment on Charley’s and Donald’s negligence claims against each other. It also entered a take nothing judgment on Mark’s and Donald’s claims against each other for breach of contract, based on the jury’s findings that neither Mark or Donald breached the contract. No one appealed. One year later, the trial has taken a toll on the parties’ remaining relationships and no one feels a reluctance to sue anyone. Assume that no statute of limitations bards any applicable claims. Donald got a judgment for damage to his car, but he has decided that his persistent backaches must also be a result of the accident. He wants to sue Mark for personal injury damages resulting from the accident. May he?
Donald is feeling peevish about losing the Mini Cooper dealership, and he no longer cares whether he offends Charley. Can he now sue Charley for breach of contract?
Briefly answer the following question: What makes a judgment "final" for res judicata to attach?
The term res judicata is used to imply a situation where a litigant is prevented from suing on the same grounds after a similar case has been previously heard and determined. It provides that as long as the suit was heard by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the merits of the case are the same, and that such a court has already entered a final judgment on the same, the parties to the case are bound "not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose."
There are a number of issues that determine a final judgment for the purpose of res judicata. The most significant one is that the judgment must be rendered on merit. This means that all material evidence needs to be fully considered before a judgment is reached. This, therefore means that a judgment needs not be right, but must be on merits and thus final to preclude future litigations.
For the rule to apply, the parties to the subsequent suits must be the same parties in the original suit. This is because; a judgment has no effect on a party that is a stranger to an action. This, therefore means that for the rule to apply, the parties and the course of action must be similar, or in the least, materially similar (www.lawschoolhelp.com).
The issue must actually have been litigated and determined. For a judgment to be said to be final, all matters raised in the case must be heard and determined. This means that a party cannot bring again such a case in future because information with the courts would indicate that the case has actually been heard and determined and judgment is final.
References
Civil Procedure ‘Res Judicata’ Adopted from: www.lawschoolhelp.com
John K. Morris. Nonparties and Preclusion by Judgment: The Privity Rule Reconsidered, 2008
