Pepper v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company
Citation | 414 F.2d 356 |
Decision Date | 06 August 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 19481.,19481. |
Parties | J. H. PEPPER, Appellant, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Bernard Whetstone, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Dennis L. Shackleford, of Shackleford & Shackleford, El Dorado, Ark., for appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and MEHAFFY and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge.
This is a timely appeal from final judgment dismissing plaintiff Pepper's complaint upon motion of defendant, Bankers Life and Casualty Company, upon the ground of res judicata. Jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship is established.
The Trial Court held that the cause of action in the present case is the same cause of action finally adjudicated adversely to Pepper in a prior action brought in the same Court by the same parties. In that case, the jury found for the defendant and the case was dismissed. Such judgment was affirmed upon appeal. Pepper v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company (8 Cir.) 387 F.2d 248. The controlling issue upon this appeal is whether the plaintiff is barred by res judicata from prosecuting the present action. We hold the Trial Court properly gave an affirmative answer on this issue and we affirm.
As we pointed out in Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co. (8 Cir.), 327 F.2d 30, the broad term res judicata is used to cover a number of situations. Res judicata here relied upon is of the broad type which we have previously labeled as claim preclusion.
The law of res judicata as it relates to claim preclusion is well settled. The rule is well stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S.Ct. 715, 719, 92 L.Ed. 898, as follows:
In Towle v. Boeing Airplane Company (8 Cir.), 364 F.2d 590, 592, we said:
Such is also the law of Arkansas. In Timmons v. Brannan, 225 Ark. 220, 280 S.W.2d 393, 394, the Arkansas court holds:
"The test is not whether the matters in the second suit were actually litigated in the former suit between the parties, but whether such matters were necessarily within the issues and might have been litigated in the former suit."
See Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658, 169 S.W.2d 872, 874, and Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958, 959.
The record in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Island Territory of Curacao v. Solitron Devices, Inc.
...on the arbitration award was merged in the Curacaoan judgment. See Restatement of Judgments § 47. See also Pepper v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 414 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1969). This would presumably be a matter of Curacaoan law in the first instance. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of L......
-
Roach v. Teamsters Local Union No. 688
...Quoted in Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 578-79, 94 S.Ct. 806, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974) And Pepper v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 414 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1969). See Clarke v. Redeker, 406 F.2d 883 (8th Cir.), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 862, 90 S.Ct. 135, 24 L.Ed.2d 115 (1969); Eng......
- Walsh v. Picard, No. 71-1127
- Lemieux v. Robbins