Opinion ID: 3011604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unmixed Question of Law

Text: As a final matter, we address briefly an exception to normal application of issue preclusion called theunmixed question of law reservation, articulated in United States v. Moser, 266 U.S. 236, 242 (1924). There, the Court wrote that res judicata does not apply to unmixed questions of law. Id.; see Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 28(2). This exception has been discussed by courts, but none has yet delineated its boundaries very well. United States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165, 170 (1984). Significantly, the Supreme Court has had no trouble finding[the exception] inapplicable [where there is] close alignment in both time and subject matter between the two cases. Id. Because the declaratory judgment addressed the same facts and claims between the same parties, there was precise alignment between the decision in Frenn and the pending Henglein case. To recognize an exception in these circumstances would eviscerate the doctrine of issue preclusion. We conclude, therefore, that the holding in Frenn precluded the Henglein parties from relitigating the six year statute of limitations. Consequently, the second judge erred in subsequently holding that the employees' claims in 15 Henglein were time-barred by the three year statute of limitations.