Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hansberry v. Lee

Supreme Court of the United States · 1940 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureclass actionsdue processadequate representationres judicataclass suitrepresentative suitadequate representation

Facts

Respondents sought to enforce a restrictive agreement covering land in a Chicago area that would become effective only if owners of 95 percent of the frontage signed it. Petitioners defended on the ground that the condition precedent had never been satisfied, but respondents argued that issue was res judicata because of an earlier suit, Burke v. Kleiman. Petitioners were not parties to Burke, were not successors in interest to parties there, and were not in privity with them. In this case, the trial court found that only about 54 percent of the frontage owners had signed, but nevertheless treated the validity issue as conclusively determined by Burke.

Issue

May a state court, consistent with due process, bind nonparties to an earlier judgment on the theory that it was a class or representative suit when the parties in the earlier case did not adequately represent the nonparties' interests? More specifically, can res judicata be applied against petitioners when the earlier litigants had interests potentially opposed to theirs in enforcing or resisting the restrictive agreement?

Rule

A person is generally not bound by an in personam judgment in litigation to which he was not made a party. Although a judgment in a class or representative suit may bind absent persons in appropriate circumstances, due process permits that result only where the procedure fairly insures protection of absent parties' interests, including that those present are of the same class and adequately represent those absent in the litigation of the common issue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a group of homeowners signed a neighborhood maintenance covenant that some owners want enforced and others want declared ineffective. Years earlier, Nora Bennett sued one owner to enforce the covenant, stating she acted for herself and "all similarly situated owners," and the court upheld the covenant. Malik Turner, who was not a party, is later sued for violating the covenant and argues the covenant never became effective because a required signature threshold was not met.

May the earlier judgment constitutionally bind Malik on the signature-threshold issue solely because the first suit was labeled representative?

Explanation. The majority held that a person is ordinarily not bound by an in personam judgment in litigation to which he was not a party. A representative judgment may bind absentees only if the procedure fairly insures protection of their interests, including adequate representation by parties of the same class. Owners interested in enforcing a covenant are not of the same class as owners interested in resisting it, so the label "representative" alone is not enough.