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

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0038 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 3. FORMER ADJUDICATION TOPIC 2. PERSONAL JUDGMENTS TITLE B. EFFECT ON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION § 49. Judgment for Defendant Not on the Merits Cal.2018. Com. (c) quot. in sup. Patient sued dentist who recommended that she receive a dental implant and oral surgeon employed by dentist who performed the implantation, alleging that she suffered permanent nerve damage as a result of surgeon's negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for surgeon, finding that patient's claim against him was untimely and that patient failed to show that his negligence caused her injury. After the court of appeals affirmed based on the statute of limitations, the trial court granted summary judgment for dentist, finding that its prior no-causation determination precluded holding dentist liable for surgeon's conduct. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. Affirming, this court held that the preclusive effect of the judgment had to be evaluated as though the trial court had not relied on the unreviewed ground. The court cited Restatement of Judgments § 49 in support of the proposition that, where a trial court based a judgment for a defendant on two alternative grounds, one on the merits and the other not on the merits, and an appellate court affirmed the judgment solely on the ground that was not on the merits, the judgment did not bar a subsequent action by a plaintiff based on the same cause of action. Samara v. Matar, 419 P.3d 924, 929. TITLE D. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION (What Claims are Extinguished by Judgment) § 61. Where Evidence Needed in Second Action Would Have Sustained the Prior Action N.Y.2018. Cit. in disc. Film studio sued investors, alleging that investors breached a covenant not to sue contained in the parties' subscription agreement by filing an action for securities fraud against studio in federal court, which was dismissed on the ground that investors had waived their right to sue in the agreement. The trial court denied investors' motion to dismiss, in which investors argued that studio's claim was barred by res judicata because studio failed to raise the claim as a compulsory counterclaim in the federal action. The court of appeals reversed. Affirming, this court held that studio's claim was based on the same transaction as the federal action and was thus barred under principles of claim preclusion. The court noted that, under Restatement of Judgments § 61, claim preclusion applied when the same evidence that was considered in the first judgment would sustain the second; in contrast, modem conceptions of res judicata embraced a broadened notion of the scope of a claim. Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 96 N.E.3d 737, 745. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgJI Printed in the United States of America 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