res adjudicata

Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc., and eleven of its officers and directors issued a proxy statement in connection with a merger between Parklane and another corporation. Leo Shore, a stockholder of Parklane, filed a class action on behalf of stockholders in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Parklane and the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the proxy statement was false and misleading in violation of sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related SEC rules. The complaint sought damages for the class, rescission of the merger, and recovery of costs. Before Shore’s action came to trial, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate suit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The SEC complaint alleged that the proxy statement that had been issued by Parklane was materially false and misleading in essentially the same respects as those that had been alleged in the respondent's complaint. After a four-day trial, the District Court found that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading in the respects alleged, and entered a declaratory judgment to that effect. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from further violations of the securities laws and ordered them to offer rescission to shareholders who had tendered shares. The defendants did not appeal this judgment. Shore then moved for partial summary judgment in the Eastern District of New York action, asserting that the defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues resolved against them in the SEC action. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that application of collateral estoppel would deny the defendants their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a party who has had issues of fact determined against him after a full and fair opportunity to litigate in a nonjury trial is collaterally estopped from obtaining a subsequent jury trial of these same issues of fact. Because of an intercircuit conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rachal v. Hill, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Dred Scott, along with his wife Harriet and their two children Eliza and Lizzie, was held as a slave by the defendant John F. A. Sandford in the State of Missouri. Scott initiated an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri asserting his and his family's right to freedom. The declaration averred that Scott was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant a citizen of New York to establish diversity jurisdiction. The defendant responded with a plea in abatement asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Scott was a negro of African descent whose ancestors were of pure African blood and had been brought into the country and sold as slaves. Scott demurred to this plea. The Circuit Court overruled the plea and required the defendant to answer over. The defendant then filed pleas in bar. After a trial on the merits the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, leading to judgment for him. Scott then prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court. The underlying facts showed that Scott had been the slave of Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army. In 1834 Emerson took Scott from Missouri to Rock Island in Illinois, where he held him as a slave until 1836. Emerson then removed Scott to Fort Snelling in the Territory of Upper Louisiana north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, holding him there until 1838. Harriet, originally the slave of Major Taliaferro, was also brought to Fort Snelling and sold to Emerson. Scott and Harriet were married at Fort Snelling in 1836 with Emerson's consent, and their children were born there or during the return journey. In 1838 Emerson brought the family back to Missouri, where they resided until Emerson sold them to Sandford. The case reached the Supreme Court after two arguments. The Court ordered reargument on some of the points due to differences of opinion among the justices and the importance of the questions involved.

In 1987 petitioners filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against respondents. The complaint alleged that respondents had committed fraud and deceit in the sale of stock in 1983 and 1984 in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The District Court dismissed the action as time barred under the then-applicable Kentucky statute of limitations. While petitioners' appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson on June 20, 1991. The next day the Court applied that decision to dismiss another pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit remanded petitioners' case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Lampf. On August 13, 1991, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice under the Lampf statute of limitations. Petitioners filed no appeal, and the judgment became final thirty days later on December 18, 1991. On December 19, 1991, the President signed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. Section 476 of that Act added section 27A to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Subsection (b) provides that any private civil action under section 10(b) commenced on or before June 19, 1991, which was dismissed as time barred after that date and which would have been timely under the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction as such laws existed on June 19, 1991, shall be reinstated on motion by the plaintiff not later than sixty days after December 19, 1991. Petitioners promptly filed a motion under section 27A(b) to reinstate their action. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 1930 a New York resident created a revocable trust that was amended in 1931. The trust directed income from the corpus to his wife for life. It also granted her a general power of appointment. In default of appointment half the corpus passed to the decedent's heirs and half to the wife's heirs. In 1951 the wife executed an instrument that purported to release the general power and convert it into a special power. The decedent died in 1957. His estate claimed a marital deduction for the widow's trust on the federal estate tax return. The Commissioner disallowed the deduction under section 2056(b)(5) of the 1954 Code and assessed a deficiency. The estate petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination. While that proceeding was pending the estate obtained a New York Supreme Court decree declaring the 1951 release a nullity. The Tax Court accepted the decree as controlling and allowed the deduction. A divided Second Circuit affirmed. The companion case involved the estate of a Connecticut decedent who died in 1958. His will directed payment of estate taxes without proration and created a residuary trust granting his wife a general testamentary power of appointment. The Commissioner disallowed part of the marital deduction. The executor then obtained a probate court order applying the state proration statute. The District Court refused to treat the probate decree as binding on federal tax questions. The Second Circuit agreed the decree was not conclusive. The two cases reached the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit panels reached differing conclusions on the effect of the state decrees. Certiorari was granted to resolve the conflict among the circuits.