1. P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp. every month for 2 years. D introduces the defense of fraud, on the ground that at the time they entered into the contract P lied to D about the C Corp.’s oil assets. D loses on that issue; judgment for P. Subsequently D breaches the contract again. P sues D and D introduces two defenses: statute of frauds (the contract was not in writing) fraud (at the time that they entered into the contract, P lied to D about the C Corp.’s coal assets). Is D issue precluded?

Little

2. If Blue Goose's suit against Little in the justice of the peace court had been in federal court instead, could Little have been able to bring his action against Blue Goose in city court in E. St. Louis?

3. How does the adjudication of Little's negligence in the justice of the peace court bar Little's wife's action against Blue Goose, which claims that Blue Goose was negligent?

4. Even if Little's wife's negligence claim against Blue Goose is barred, how is it that her recklessness claim is barred?

Jacobson

5. Why wasn't the second action by the plaintiff barred by claim preclusion?

6. Didn't the defendant admit in the pleadings in the first action that the lease had been executed? If so, why can't he be held to that admission in a subsequent action?

7. What if the defendant had denied in the pleadings in the first action that the lease was executed, but never introduced any evidence, so he failed to prove it at trial? What result in the second action?

8. What if the defendant had defaulted in the first action? What result in the second action?

9. What if the defendant had denied in the pleadings in the first action that the lease was executed, but lost on summary judgment? What result in the second action?

10. Does it make sense for a consent judgment to have issue preclusive effect?

11. P sues D for negligence. D introduces the affirmative defense of contributory negligence in his answer. At trial, no evidence for or against contributory negligence is offered by either side and the jury finds for P. Would D be issue precluded from relitigating P’s negligence?
 

Cambria

12. If the court in the case of Jeffrey v. Cambria found that Cambia's servant was negligent, why did this case not have issue preclusive effect on Cambria v. Jeffrey?

13. Which is the better approach to the problem of whether the adjudication of an issue is essential to a judgment, Home Owners or Cambria?

Alternative Determinations

14. Which is the better approach to the problem of alternative determinations, the First Restatement's, the Second Restatement's, or Halpern's? Can you think of a better rule?

Inconsistent Determinations

15. There is a finding for the plaintiff on an issue in state A and a subsequent finding for the defendant on the same issue in state B. The plaintiff sues the defendant in state A and the issue again comes up. Which determination has preclusive effect?

Consider the following cases:

1) P sues D for breach of a contract to buy 10 shares of the C Corp. every month for 2 years. D introduces the defense of fraud, on the ground that at the time they entered into the contract P lied to D about the C Corp.’s oil assets. D loses on that issue; judgment for P. Subsequently D breaches the contract again. P sues D and D introduces two defenses: statute of frauds (the contract was not in writing); fraud (at the time that they entered into the contract, P lied to D about the C Corp.’s coal assets). Is D issue precluded?

2) P buys bonds from D. P then sues D to recover interest. D admitted in his answer that the bonds were valid but argued that P had released D of his obligation to pay interest. Judgment for P. P then buys more of D's bonds. P sues again to recover interest. D argues that the bonds are invalid. Is D issue precluded?

3) P sues D for negligence. D introduces the affirmative defense of contributory negligence in his answer. At trial, no evidence for or against contributory negligence is offered by either side and the jury finds for P. Was P's negligence actually litigated and decided?

4) P sues D for interest on note. D alleges fraud in execution of note and release of an obligation to pay interest. P wins. P then sues for principal. Is the previous adjudication conclusive on question of fraud in execution of the note?

5) Same as 4, but D had won the previous case - both issues were decided for D. Is P issue precluded to relitigate fraud in the execution of the note? What if, instead, P is suing in the second suit for new interest due on the note?

6) P and D contract for D to deliver coal to P monthly. D breaches. P sues D in California state court. D argues that the contract is invalid. D loses on that issue. Judgment is entered for P. D breaches again. P sues D in Nevada state court. D argues that the contract is invalid, P fails to argue issue preclusion, and D wins. P does not appeal. D breaches again. P sues D in California state court. D argues that the contract is invalid. P argues issue preclusion. Which previous determination has issue preclusive effect?

What if P had asserted issue preclusion in the Nevada state court case, but the court rejected and P did not appeal?

What if P had appealed the denial of issue preclusion in Nevada state court, but the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the decision and the US Supreme Court refused to grant cert?