DeLuca v. Town of Hingham

First Circuit

DeLuca v. Town of Hingham

155 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2005

Docket05-1208

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. App'x 1 (DeLuca v. Town of Hingham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeLuca v. Town of Hingham, 155 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. 1

In relevant part, the appellant argues that the elements of claim preclusion were not satisfied because a final judgment on the merits was not rendered in his earlier, state action. However, the dismissal of the state action as time-barred was a judgment on the merits. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). See also DaLuz v. Dep’t of Corr., 434 Mass. 40, 45, 746 N.E.2d 501 (2001)(outlining elements of claim preclusion).

Irrespective of claim preclusion, he also argues that fairness required entertaining the merits of his claims. Although claim preclusion may perpetuate inequity in some particular cases, the doctrine’s salutary purposes of promoting repose and judicial economy would be undermined by making ad hoc determinations of the equities in individual cases. United States v. Cunan, 156 F.3d 110, 119 (1st Cir.1998); *2 Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1985).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

1

. Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s remaining, pending motions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. 1

In relevant part, the appellant argues that the elements of claim preclusion were not satisfied because a final judgment on the merits was not rendered in his earlier, state action. However, the dismissal of the state action as time-barred was a judgment on the merits. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). See also DaLuz v. Dep’t of Corr., 434 Mass. 40, 45, 746 N.E.2d 501 (2001)(outlining elements of claim preclusion).

Irrespective of claim preclusion, he also argues that fairness required entertaining the merits of his claims. Although claim preclusion may perpetuate inequity in some particular cases, the doctrine’s salutary purposes of promoting repose and judicial economy would be undermined by making ad hoc determinations of the equities in individual cases. United States v. Cunan, 156 F.3d 110, 119 (1st Cir.1998); *2 Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1985).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

1

. Accordingly, we deny the appellant’s remaining, pending motions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deluca-v-town-of-hingham-ca1-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack