Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 335-337 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court held that issue preclusion absent mutuality of parties does not violate the Seventh Amendment, even though common law as it existed in 1791 permitted issue preclusion only when there was mutuality).

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the sole dissent, lamenting the Court opinion as follows:

It may be that if this Nation were to adopt a new Constitution today, the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing the right of jury trial in civil cases in federal courts would not be included among its provisions. But any present sentiment to that effect cannot obscure or dilute our obligation to enforce the Seventh Amendment, which was included in the Bill of Rights in 1791 and which has not since been repealed in the only manner provided by the Constitution for repeal of its provisions.
The right of trial by jury in civil cases at common law is fundamental to our history and jurisprudence. Today, however, the Court reduces this valued right, which Blackstone praised as "the glory of the English law," to a mere "neutral" factor and in the name of procedural reform denies the right of jury trial to defendants in a vast number of cases in which defendants, heretofore, have enjoyed jury trials. Over 35 years ago, Mr. Justice Black lamented the "gradual process of judicial erosion which in one-hundred-fifty years has slowly worn away a major portion of the essential guarantee of the Seventh Amendment." Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 397 (1943) (dissenting opinion). Regrettably, the erosive process continues apace with today's decision.
Personal tools