explaining that, with limited exceptions, the preclusive effect of a judgment extends to all persons who have a relationship with the defendant “such that one of them is vicariously responsible for the conduct of the other” (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 51 (A.L.I. 1982))
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, with limited exceptions, the preclusive effect of a judgment extends to all persons who have a relationship with the defendant “such that one of them is vicariously responsible for the conduct of the other” (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 51 (A.L.I. 1982))
- stating that in applying this element of claim preclusion, the court should view the claim in factual terms and make it coterminous with the transaction regardless of the number of substantive theories or forms of relief available
- precluding a subsequent action against employees acting in their official capacities when the employer had been sued previously
- “Under Wisconsin law, … when an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid final judgment and the determination is essential to the judgment, it is conclusive in a subsequent action whether on the same or a different claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSER, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur in the majority opinion that the trial court was correct in dismissing this case against Borden, Inc. and its employees under the doctrine of res judicata,.
I dissent from the dismissal of the conspiracy claim under sec. 134.01, Stats., however, against Howard Gun-drum, Janice Gundrum and John W. Hansen, the milk haulers, on either res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds. Clearly, res judicata does not apply. The milk haulers were not parties to the original action against Borden in federal court, nor were they Borden’s privies. 1
In this case Landess sues the milk haulers for conspiracy. The majority hinges its affirmance of the trial court, in part, on the fact that Landess cannot prove his conspiracy charge between Borden and the milk haulers because of the prior federal dismissal, but this ruling does not address whether the Gundrums and Hansen are conspirators among themselves under sec. 134.01, Stats.
The Gundrums and Hansen are two or more persons, Landess complains, who together willfully undertook to
*206 injure his trade or business 2 and thereby damaged him. 3 We must read complaints liberally. 4 A liberal construction of the complaint against the Gundrums and Hansen is that they conspired with each other, in violation of sec. 134.01, Stats., to Landess’ civil damage. Landess is not, therefore collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of conspiracy among the milk haulers to ruin Landess’ trade or business.
I would reverse that part of the judgment dismissing Landess’ complaint against the Gundrums and Hansen and remand the matter for trial.
DePratt v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 113 Wis. 2d 306, 311 , 334 N.W.2d 883, 885 (1983).
Sec. 134.01, Stats.
Onderdonk v. Lamb, 79 Wis. 2d 241, 247 , 255 N.W.2d 507, 510 (1977); Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis. 2d 239, 245 , 246 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1976).
Zinn v. State, 112 Wis. 2d 417, 423 , 334 N.W.2d 67, 70 (1983).