Opinion ID: 587250
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Have There Been Intervening Changes in the Legal Context?

Text: 149 The majority, without further explanation, concludes that the Kennebunkport Order represents 'an intervening change in the applicable legal context'  which renders issue preclusion inapplicable. Majority Op. at 1356. I believe that the panel opinion misapplies this exception to issue preclusion. 150 Section 28(2)(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments (1982) states that relitigation of an issue is not precluded where a new determination is warranted in order to take account of an intervening change in the applicable legal context.... The paradigmatic case, as presented in the Restatement, is that of a taxpayer held liable for tax under a certain interpretation of the law, where that interpretation is later abandoned in favor of another which would not require liability. If, after this intervening change, the taxpayer once again challenges his liability, the Restatement advises that issue preclusion should not apply so that the taxpayer will be treated in those years in the same way as other taxpayers.... Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 28 cmt. c (1982). See also Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 599-600, 68 S.Ct. 715, 720, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948); 18 Wright & Miller § 4425 at 259-60. 151 The intervening change exception protects a party from being bound by a prior litigation where the legal grounds upon which that prior litigation was resolved have changed during the intervening period. In the present case, while the May 23, 1992 order no doubt constitutes a significant change in the lives of those affected by it, it has no bearing on the merits of the legal issues decided in HRC v. Baker and cannot constitute an intervening change in the law upon which that decision was grounded. Thus, the May 23, 1992 Order is not an intervening change in the applicable legal context, Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28(2)(b) (emphasis added), and does not enable plaintiffs to avoid issue preclusion. 152