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

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0044 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS Generally C.A.11, 2021. Cit. generally in ftn. After obtaining default judgment in his favor in state court, creditor brought an adversary action against Chapter 7 debtor, alleging that the judgment against debtor was nondischargeable, because it arose from debtor's fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misrepresentations made in order to convert creditor's investments into debtor's now-defunct business. The bankruptcy court granted creditor's motion to except the debt from discharge. The district court affirmed. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the state-court judgment did not have preclusive effect, because it was based on creditor's alternate factual allegations. The court noted that the Restatement of Judgments generally provided preclusive effect to judgments based on alternate factual allegations. In re Harris, 3 F.4th 1339, 1348. 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 U.S.2021. Com. (a) quot. in sup.; com. (b) cit. in sup. Individual who was mistaken as a fugitive in a violent encounter with federal officers filed claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and against officers under the implied cause of action recognized by Bivens, alleging that officers committed several torts under Michigan law. The district court granted summary judgment for the United States on the ground that officers did not act with malice, and for officers on the ground that they were entitled to federal qualified immunity. After plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his Bivens claims against officers only, the court of appeals reversed, holding that the dismissal of his FTCA claim did not act as a judgment bar that blocked his parallel Bivens claims, and that officers were not entitled to immunity. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the district court's order was a judgment on the merits of the FTCA claim that could trigger the judgment bar. The court cited Restatement of Judgments § 49 in explaining that, under the common law, judgments were preclusive with respect to issues decided as long as the court had the power to decide the issue. Brownback v. King, 141 S.Ct. 740, 748-750. 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 COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America i L -an 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