ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Lee (Plaintiff) sought to enjoin the sale of land to Hansberry (Defendants) on the ground that the sale violated a racially restrictive covenant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. There must be adequate representation of the members of a class action in order for the judgment to be binding on the parties not adequately represented.
Issue. Whether a party can be bound by an earlier judgment of which they were not a party?
Held. No. Judgment overturned. In general, one is not bound by a judgment in litigation in which he is not designated as a party. However, there is a recognized exception to this general rule. The judgment in a class or representative suit in which some members of the class are parties may bind members of the class or those represented who were not made parties to the action. A failure of due process occurs where it cannot be said that the procedure used insures the protection of the interests of the absent parties who are bound by the judgment. Here, since the parties have dual and potentially conflicting interest to the agreement in compelling and resisting performance, it is hard to say that any of them are of the same class. There was no designation of the Defendants in the suit as a class. When the Burke judgment was enforced, it did not purport to bind others. The Plaintiffs in the Burke case were not representing the petitioners in this case whose interests were in resisting performance. Therefore, the petitioners are not bound by the earlier judgment.
Because of the dual and potentially conflicting interests of those who are putative parties to the agreement in compelling or resisting its performance, it is impossible to say, solely because they are parties to it, that any two of them are of the same class.View Full Point of Law