recognizing that an acquiescence to claim-splitting can overcome a res judicata defense
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that an acquiescence to claim-splitting can overcome a res judicata defense
- adopting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(l)(a) (1982) rule on claim-splitting which requires a party to raise objection that another action is pending based upon same claim or be deemed to have acquiesced in the splitting of plaintiffs claim and thus be unable to assert claim preclusion in either case based upon resolution of other
- recognizing that an acquiescence to claim- (continued . . .) 21 (. . . continued) splitting can overcome a res judicata defense
- “[A]fter the moving party makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of fact is in dispute and as a matter of law he is entitled to judgment, the burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut that prima facie showing with specific evidence demonstrating contested facts.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed based on the analysis in Parts II-III. of Judge FeRREn’s opinion, which Judge Wagner joins and, further, based on the result reached by Judge Wagner and Judge Reilly for different reasons, as indicated in their separate opinions.