United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1950 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsMootnessRes JudicataVacaturmootnessvacaturres judicatacollateral estoppel

Facts

The United States sued Munsingwear on one count for an injunction and on another for treble damages, alleging violations of a regulation fixing maximum prices. By agreement and pretrial order, the treble-damages count and another similar treble-damages suit were held in abeyance pending final determination of the injunction suit. The district court held that respondent's prices complied with the regulation and dismissed the injunction complaint. While the government's appeal from that judgment was pending, the commodity was decontrolled, the appeal was dismissed as moot, and respondent then successfully argued that the unreversed injunction judgment was res judicata of the treble-damages actions.

Issue

Whether a district court judgment in an injunction suit, left unmodified after the appeal was dismissed as moot, could be given res judicata effect in later treble-damages actions between the same parties on the same pricing issue. More specifically, the question was whether mootness on appeal and the resulting lack of appellate review created an exception to ordinary preclusion principles.

Rule

A judgment that directly determines a right, question, or fact in a suit between the same parties is conclusive in a later suit on a different claim so long as the first judgment remains unmodified. In federal civil cases that become moot on appeal, the established appellate practice is to vacate or reverse the judgment below and remand with directions to dismiss, which clears the path for future relitigation and prevents the unreviewable judgment from spawning legal consequences; a party who fails to seek that relief cannot later avoid the preclusive effect of the standing judgment.

🔒

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.

The Federal Trade Licensing Bureau sued Harbor Peak Textiles in federal district court in Chicago for an injunction, alleging that the company misclassified its goods under a federal pricing order. The district court ruled for Harbor Peak Textiles on the classification issue. While the Bureau's appeal was pending, the pricing order expired, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot, and the Bureau had not asked the appellate court to vacate the district court judgment.

In a later federal damages action between the same parties turning on the same classification issue, what is the best argument for Harbor Peak Textiles?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive in a later suit between the same parties, even on a different claim, so long as the first judgment remains unmodified. When a federal civil case becomes moot on appeal, the established practice is to seek vacatur or reversal with directions to dismiss. Because the Bureau did not seek that relief, the outstanding judgment may have preclusive effect.