This flashcard is just one of a free flashcard set. See all flashcards!
34
Janney v. Shepard Niles
Compulsory Joinder. Was Underwood necessary and indispensible? (w/o pty, relief cannot be granted. OR missing pty has interest which would be impeded in absence OR risk inconsistent allegations.)
H - Relief could be granted in Underwood's absence. Underwood didn't have an interest, b/c federal outcome would not be precedent for ongoing state litigation against Underwood. (Issue preclusion must be reasonably likely as a result, not just possible, and usually only occurs if parties are in privity, i.e. have some right of control).
Notes: Joint tortfeasors who may have to pay full amt if their co-feasor is not brought in is not "inconsistent allegations," b/c you know this at the start when you agree to a joint venture. Thus, Shepard Niles is SOL if Underwood isn't found liable in the state thing, even though they're joint tortfeasors.
H - Relief could be granted in Underwood's absence. Underwood didn't have an interest, b/c federal outcome would not be precedent for ongoing state litigation against Underwood. (Issue preclusion must be reasonably likely as a result, not just possible, and usually only occurs if parties are in privity, i.e. have some right of control).
Notes: Joint tortfeasors who may have to pay full amt if their co-feasor is not brought in is not "inconsistent allegations," b/c you know this at the start when you agree to a joint venture. Thus, Shepard Niles is SOL if Underwood isn't found liable in the state thing, even though they're joint tortfeasors.
Tags: Joinder
Source:
Source:
Flashcard info:
Author: stgillian
Main topic: Law
Topic: Civil Law
School / Univ.: Tulane
City: New Orleans, LA
Published: 02.03.2010