Civil Procedure: Judgments: Res Judicata Effect of Dismissal with Prejudice

1952 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 600
Author(s):  
David F. Ulmer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Res Judicata

scholarly journals Realization of res judicata principle in civil proceedings: the experience of foreign countries

2020 ◽  
pp. 220-225
Author(s):  
Tetiana Tsuvina
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Subject

  The article is devoted to the analysis of res judicata as an essential element of the legal certainty. Res judicata is considered to be one of the main guaranties of the legal certainty principle in civil procedure which allows a stability of the court decisions in democratic society and increase the public confidence to judiciary.  The author analyzes national characteristics of the realization of the principle of res judicata in civil procedure of foreign countries. The author explores the preclusion effect of court decisions, highlighting two effects of the res judicata principle: positive and negative one. The negative effect of res judicata is aimed at preventing the re-consideration of identical disputes between the parties if the dispute has already been resolved by the court, in turn, the positive effect of res judicata allows the parties to refer to circumstances that have already been established by a court decision in the dispute between them, in new proceedings, where they are involved. It is concluded that there are significant differences in the understanding of this principle in common law and civil law legal systems. The common law countries have a broad understanding of the res judicata principle, which includes positive and negative effects, and is implemented through such institutions as the claim preclusion and the issue preclusion. Civil law countries follow a narrow approach to understanding of res judicata principle, which is limited only by the negative effect and is reflected in the claim preclusion, which blocks filing an identical claim if there is a final court decision on the dispute between the parties. In common law jurisdiction there is a wider conception of the “claim”, according to which it is understood in the context of entire dispute and comprise all claims based on the legal relationship between the parties, whether or not they were the subject of court proceedings. At the same time in civil law countries identity of the claims can be notified with the help of the triple identity test, which contains the identity of the subject of the claim, the identity of the cause of action and the identity of the parties of the claim.

scholarly journals A SENTENÇA DE MÉRITO PROLATADA COM A PRETERIÇÃO DO(S) LITISCONSORTE(S) NECESSÁRIO(S) UNITÁRIO(S): UMA ANÁLISE SOB A ÓTICA DOS PLANOS DOS ATOS PROCESSUAIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Lisiane Beatriz Fröhlich ◽  
Jonathan Iovane De Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Moment

RESUMOO presente estudo tem como objetivo geral compreender em qual dos planos dos atos processuais – existência, validade ou eficácia – reside o defeito que acomete a sentença de mérito prolatada com a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). A partir dos resultados obtidos com a pesquisa, constatou-se que, para o alcance de uma conclusão satisfatória a seu respeito, é imprescindível a verificação do momento em que é alegada a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). Assim, concluiu-se que, na eventualidade de a alegação ocorrer anteriormente ao trânsito em julgado, o defeito estará situado no plano da validade, tratando-se de uma nulidade absoluta. Por outro lado, após o trânsito em julgado, o que remanesce é o vício no plano da eficácia. Dessa forma, observa-se que a atual legislação processual civil não é incorreta, mas incompleta e carente de precisão. Isso porque, apesar da superlativa importância da definição do momento em que se está analisando o vício, o Código de Processo Civil de 2015 é omisso com relação a esse aspecto, potencializando as dúvidas a respeito do tema. Por fim, verificou-se que, devido à gravidade do defeito que acomete essa sentença – oriunda, sobretudo, da ofensa aos princípios constitucionais –, é possível que qualquer interessado o alegue. Além disso, pelos mesmos motivos, as vias processuais admissíveis para combater esse vício são variadas, podendo ser manejada a ação rescisória, a impugnação ao cumprimento de sentença, a querela nullitatis insanabilis ou, ainda, qualquer outro meio idôneo e compatível com a situação concreta.Palavras-chave: Litisconsórcio necessário unitário. Sentença de mérito. Inexistência. Invalidade. Ineficácia. ABSTRACTThe purpose of the present study is to understand in which of the plans of procedural acts – existence, validity or efficacy – is situated the defect that affects the judgment of merit prolated with the pretermission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. From the results obtained with the research, it was verified that, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion about it, it is essential to verify the moment when is alleged the omission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. Thus, it was concluded that, if the claim occurs before it is formed the res judicata, the defect is situated in the validity plan, being an absolute nullity. On the other hand, after the res judicata is formed, what remains is the inefficacy. Therefore, it was verified that the current civil procedural law is not incorrect, but incomplete and lacking precision. This is because, in spite of the superlative importance of defining which moment the defect is being analyzed, the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015 do not consider this aspect, potentializing doubts about the issue. Finally, it was discovered that, because of the severity of the defect that affects this veredict – originated, principally, from the offense to the constitutional principles – it is possible that any interested subject of the process can claim it. Besides that, for the same reasons, it is admitted the use of several procedural means to combat this decision, like the rescissory action, the enforcement’s impugnment of the judgment, the querela nullitatis insanabilis or any other suitable procedural means and compatible with the specific situation.Keywords: Necessary unitary joinder of parties. Judgment of merit. Inexistence. Invalidity. Inefficacy.

scholarly journals Die Übertragbarkeit der deutschen Vollstreckungsgegenklage in das chinesische Zivilprozessrecht

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yin Jin
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Correct Decision ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Debtor Protection

The action of objecting to a claim that is being enforced (§ 767 ZPO) serves as preventive debtor protection. In German civil procedure law, the provision of this action dates back to the CPO 1877. However, a corresponding action is still lacking in Chinese civil procedure law. Only since 2015 has a debtor been able to assert his substantive objections by way of reminder and immediate complaint before enforcement agencies. However, this form of legal protection does not guarantee a correct decision. Furthermore, this preclusion (see § 767 (2) ZPO) in Chinese law extends to enforceable notarial documents that have no res judicata. In this study, the author therefore proposes implementing the German action of objecting to a claim that is being enforced into Chinese civil procedure law.

scholarly journals Judgment, Res Judicata and Lis Pendens

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-197
Author(s):  
European Law
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
Res Judicata

This chapter discusses judgments and judicial settlements. For the purpose of the European Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment is a decision, which finally resolves the matter by deciding the claim on either the merits, dismisses the proceedings on procedural grounds, or which decides a preliminary procedural issue or a specific legal issue on the merits. A decision finally resolves the matter if proceedings in which the decision was rendered cannot continue before the court where they have been instituted. This includes judgments that finally resolve the matter with respect to a part of the claim for relief or one or more of several, but not all claims for relief brought in one and the same proceeding. It does not encompass case management orders or orders that regulate evidence-taking. It is, however, a matter of the court's discretion whether to render a judgment on specific procedural issues or on specific legal issues on the merits that finally determine particularly important incidental issues, which may then be subject to the appellate process. The chapter also considers the goals of the Rules relating to lispendens and to res judicata.

The Res Judicata Effect in England of a US Class Action Settlement

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. L. Dixon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Res Judicata

In US courts the procedural device of the class action is available by virtue of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to certain conditions, this rule enables one person to bring an action on behalf of a large number of others (the “class members”) and the resolution of such an action, whether it is by way of judgment following trial or by the entry of an order of settlement, has res judicata effect on the class members. In most cases the majority of class members are all resident in the United States.

scholarly journals A Restituição do Poder Familiar: da Possibilidade Jurídica ao Procedimento a Ser Adotado

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Carlos Canuto Machado
Keyword(s):  
Power Loss ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Theoretical Support ◽  
The Family ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Children Education ◽  
Interesting Alternative

ResumoA família é a base da sociedade e do Estado. De fato, a convivência em família corresponde a um dos mecanismos preparatórios do indivíduo para vida em sociedade. Desse modo, se mostra importante a atuação dos pais na educação de seus filhos almejando esse múnus público, e para isso, a legislação oferta um complexo de deveres-direitos aos pais denominado de poder familiar. Se exercido de forma irregular o poder familiar dos genitores pode ser destituído pela autoridade judiciária. Em que pese alguns juristas e doutrinadores sustentarem que a destituição é irreversível, o princípio do melhor interesse do menor pode ser aplicado em alguns casos para permitir a restituição do poder familiar, desde que tenha ocorrido uma mudança fática na situação que ensejou a destituição e que o menor não tenha sido adotado. Importante frisar que a restituição do poder familiar não fere a coisa julgada, uma vez que se aplica o disposto no Artigo 505, I do CPC. Sugere-se, portanto, uma nova ação, que poderá restituir o poder familiar do (s) genitor (es), se comprovada a alteração dos fatos que ensejaram a destituição e que a medida se mostra mais proveitosa aos interesses do menor. O procedimento contencioso deverá ser empregado nos casos em que o menor está sob a guarda de outra pessoa. Já nos casos em que o menor se encontra na responsabilidade do Estado, o procedimento descrito no Artigo 109 da Lei 6.015/73 se mostra uma alternativa interessante. Palavras-chave: Poder Familiar. Destituição. Restituição. Procedimento. AbstractFamily is the groundwork of society and State. In fact, the family coexistence consists to one of the preparatory mechanisms of the person to live in society. Therefore, it’s important the parents actions for their children education, targeting at this public function, and for that, law offers a complex of duties-rights to parents which are called ‘family power’. If this ‘family power’ is irregularly exercised by parents, they may be removed by the judicial authority. Although some lawyers and theoretical support that the ‘family power’ lost is irreversible, the ‘principle of the best interest of the minor’ may be applied in some cases to allow the return of family power, since that a factual change has happened on that situation that led to the loss of ‘family power’ and that the child has not been adopted yet. It is important to highlight that the restitution of ‘family power’ does not reach the res judicata, since the text of ‘Article 505, I of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure’ is applied. Therefore, a new lawsuit is proposed, which may restore the ‘family power’ of the parents, if the modification of the facts that led to its dismissal is proven, and that the mandate is more beneficial to the minor’s interests. The litigation procedure should be applied in cases where the child is under another person’s custody. In cases in which the minor is under State’s responsibility, the procedure cited in ‘Article 109 of Law Act 6.015 of 1973” is an interesting alternative. Keyworks: ‘Family Power’; Loss of ‘family power’. Restitution of ‘Family Power’. Procedur.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document