Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureCollateral EstoppelJudicial NoticePreclusionDue Processoffensive collateral estoppelnonmutual estoppelprivity

Facts

Various workers sued numerous manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of asbestos-containing products, alleging exposure and disease. The district court, seeking to manage the litigation, treated Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. as establishing matters such as the dangerousness of asbestos insulation products, asbestos as a producing cause of mesothelioma and asbestosis, and the inadequacy or absence of warnings. It then applied nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel and judicial notice against all defendants, including some who were not parties to Borel and some who had settled before trial in Borel. The order prevented the parties from introducing evidence on asbestos causation and on defendants' knowledge or duty to warn.

Issue

Whether, in this diversity action, the district court properly applied federal offensive collateral estoppel and judicial notice based on Borel to preclude defendants from litigating asbestos causation and state-of-the-art warning issues. More specifically, could the order bind non-Borel defendants on a theory of privity or identity of interests, and could it bind Borel defendants despite ambiguity, inconsistent verdicts, and fairness concerns?

Rule

Federal law determines the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment, even in a diversity case. Offensive collateral estoppel may be used only when the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, the issue is identical to one in the prior action, the issue was actually litigated, the determination was necessary and essential to the prior judgment, and application is fair; nonparties may not be bound absent true privity or representation, and judicial notice may be taken only of adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute.

🔒

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 federal court in Houston, Elena Ruiz sues several makers of industrial sealants under Texas products-liability law. She argues that a prior federal diversity judgment from Louisiana against one sealant maker conclusively establishes a warning-related issue in her case, while the defendants argue the court must apply Texas preclusion law because Texas substantive law governs the claims.

Which law should the federal court apply to determine the preclusive effect of the earlier federal judgment?

Explanation. Federal law governs the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment, including one entered in a diversity case. The majority reasoned that this preserves the integrity and finality of federal judgments. The fact that the present claims arise under state substantive law does not switch the estoppel analysis to state law.