Frier v. City of
770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)
Yeazell, pp. 799-806
Facts: Frier got some of his cars towed by the city. Instead of paying the fine, he sued for
replevin in state court and lost. Then
he tried to sue in federal court invoking the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint,
and Frier appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Issue: Is Frier’s federal claim precluded by the resolution
of his state claim?
Rule: One suit precludes a second when the parties are
identical and the evidence necessary to sustain a second verdict would sustain
the first.
Analysis: The appellate court says that Frier already had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate all the important issues. He could not have filed his present claim in
state court because of issue preclusion, and thus he can’t file it in federal
court either.
The dissent says that claim
preclusion doesn’t apply here; instead, the city was entitled to summary
judgment because Frier’s due process claims had no merit.
Swygert claims that the first
suit by Frier was substantive, while this one is procedural. Under the old version of the preclusion
rules, unlike under the Restatement of Judgments, only the specific thing that
was previously litigated is precluded from further litigation. Swygert says that
Then Swygert says that Frier
received enough due process anyway, so he would come to the same conclusion as
Easterbrook and the majority.
Conclusion: The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.
Notes and Problems
1.
a.
The
majority doesn’t reject his constitutional claim, they just say he should have
brought it up before.
b.
I
don’t think that claim has ever been litigated.
c.
It
may not be totally fair, but it is efficient to such a degree that it outweighs
the equity aspect.
2.
a.
It
looks like it might be an
b.
Why
is this common law when everything else is a rule? Why not just write down the prevailing common
law rule and thus codify the existing right?
c.
Okay.
d.