About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [i] (July 2016 through April 2017)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0034 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Personal Judgments U.S.2016. Com. (b) quot. in diss. op. Abortion providers challenged the constitutionality of a Texas statutory provision that required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of providers. The court of appeals reversed in part and remanded. Reversing, this court held that providers' post-enforcement, as-applied challenge to the provision in this action was not barred by claim preclusion based on a prior action involving many of the same parties that unsuccessfully asserted a pre-enforcement, facial challenge to the same provision. A dissent pointed out that the court in the prior action found that the evidence offered by the plaintiffs was insufficient, and argued that providers were precluded from bringing their claims in this action under Restatement of Judgments § 1, which explained that the ordinary rules of claim preclusion applied even if the party against whom a judgment was rendered was later in a position to produce better evidence. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292, 2335. CHAPTER 2. VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS TOPIC 1. REQUISITES OF A VALID JUDGMENT § 7. Competency of the Court Wis.2016. Cit. in diss. op. Defendant filed a motion to reopen and vacate a first-offense operating-while- intoxicated civil-forfeiture judgment entered against her in Wisconsin, claiming that the judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it should have been criminally charged as a second offense due to her prior conviction for driving while intoxicated in Minnesota. The trial court granted defendant's motion and voided the judgment. This court reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the judgment, holding that the trial court lacked competency but retained subject-matter jurisdiction. The dissent argued that the judgment was void, noting that the distinction between subject- matter jurisdiction and competency remained unclear and confusing and had been applied inconsistently by courts, and that Restatement of Judgments § 7 used the terms interchangeably. City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 882 N.W.2d 738, 760-761. CHAPTER 3. FORMER ADJUDICATION TOPIC 1. GENERAL RULES § 43. Effect of Judgment on Pending Action LAwLI For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most