Document: 464 U.S. 165 104 S.Ct. 575 78 L.Ed.2d 388 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY. No. 82-1448. Argued Nov. 2, 1983. Decided Jan. 10, 1984. Syllabus When officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Tennessee, accompanied by employees a private firm under contract to EPA, attempted inspect one respondent's Tennessee plants, respondent refused entry contractors unless they would sign an agreement not disclose trade secrets. The do so, EPA later obtained administrative warrant authorizing conduct inspection. After honor warrant, Government began civil contempt proceeding against in Federal District Court moved quash on ground that are "authorized representatives" § 114(a)(2) Clean Air Act for purposes conducting inspections premises subject regulation Act. court denied motion, appeal reiterated its statutory argument also asserted should be collaterally estopped from asserting authorizes inspections, because contrary decision Appeals Tenth Circuit case involving same parties which arose similar refusal allow contractors, accompanying Wyoming officials, enter plants. present reversed Court, agreeing with both merits issue and, alternatively, collateral-estoppel issue. Held: doctrine mutual defensive collateral estoppel is applicable preclude relitigation already litigated party another virtually identical facts. Cf. Montana v. United States, 440 147, 99 970, 59 210. Pp. 169-174. (a) generally applies issues law fact if those were conclusively determined prior action parties. exception applicability principles "unmixed questions law" arising "successive actions unrelated matter," supra, at 162, S.Ct., 978, does apply here. Whatever purpose or extent exception, there no reason it here litigate twice cases 169-172. (b) Nor justified application litigation recurring public importance will freeze development law. That persuasive only prevent absence mutuality. While Sixth Circuit's prevents relitigating respondent, still leaves free future other litigants. 173-174. 684 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir.1982), affirmed. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Charles Lettow, respondent. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 In March 1980, when tried Stauffer Chemical Company's plants using addition full-time employees, plant. argues as term used Act, 42 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 7414(a)(2). government question whether statute has lost connection inspection Stauffer's Wyoming. agreed Without reaching merits, we affirm Appeals' holding Stauffer. 2 On 27, state elemental phosphorus production plant Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. entire group left without making inspection, warrant. 3 following day, federal district simultaneously It argued Act.1 motion quash, accepting EPA's authority conferred upon extends retained EPA. States Co., 511 F.Supp. 744 (M.D.Tenn.1981). 4 appeal, basis Co. 647 1075 (CA10 1981) (hereinafter I ), contending Wyoming, different phosphate ore processing near Sage, As case, insisted nondisclosure agreement, declined them then instituted seeking enjoin inspecting issued injunction, affirmed, pursuant 114(a)(2). Id., 1079. 5 II ) adopting alternate grounds decision. Judge Weick, who court, authorized 1174, 1181-1190 (CA6 1982). Relying 210 (1979), he held was litigating again F.2d, 1179-1181.2 Jones wrote separate concurring concluding inappropriate reach merits. 1190-1192. Siler separately, dissenting Weick's but his 1192-1193. For reasons follow, agree Accordingly, judgment 6 gross receipts tax public, private, construction firms violates Supremacy Clause Constitution. A contractor, financed directed government, had Supreme unanimously upheld tax. approving use Montana, first mutuality parties, see Mendoza, --- ----, 568, note 9, sought relitigated unsuccessfully been change controlling facts legal since action. 155-162, 974-978. 7 We next looked any special circumstances warranting otherwise rules preclusion. One mentioned possibly relevant matter." 978; Moser, 266 236, 242, 45 66, 67, 69 L.Ed. 262 (1924). Noting articulated Moser "difficult delineate," U.S., 163, nonetheless trouble finding inapplicable close alignment time matter between actions. Ibid.3 8 Like bar involves argue dissimilar nor have changed I. instead normal substantially role warrants such this one. disagree government's arguments. 9 commonly explained, can ante; Allen McCurry, 449 90, 94, 101 411, 414, 66 308 (1980). Our cases, however, recognize 95, n. 7, 415, 7; 67. our discussion indicates recognized, frank admit uncertainty application. seems require determination "issue fact" arises successive so warranted. Yet that, determining estoppel, 10 "[w]hen claims two closely related . ordinarily necessary characterize unfair winning unnecessary burden courts repeated what essentially controversy, even regarded 'law'." Restatement (Second) Judgments 28 comment b (1982).4 11 Thus assigning label claim relitigated, If was, 12 Both result overview program supervising efforts enforce national air quality standards. See 1, supra. owned occurred just over weeks apart, each Any factual differences difference location contracting involved, significance whatever resolving presented cases. 13 Admittedly underlying far clear. But extent, think Indeed applying frustrate doctrine's protecting litigants burdensome promoting judicial economy. Parklane Hosiery Shore, 439 322, 326, 645, 649, 58 552 (1979).5 14 attempts unpersuasively supply justifications overriding economy concerns allowing here, did ante, concluded applied where party, loses force. Stauffer, litigants.6 15 agency charged administering body nationwide, similarly situated thus resulting inequitable administration example, points situation created recent Bunker Hill Company Lead Zinc Smelter 658 1280 (CA9 1981), Ninth accepted contractors. foreclosed within benefit rule precluding while competitors rule. Tr. Oral Arg. 17-18. argument, deciding enough say before Following usual practice more than dispose us, express estoppel. 16 therefore find arguments unpersuasive limiting Because conclude correct decline case. 153, 973. issue, therefore, 17 Affirmed. 18 WHITE, Justice, result. 19 majority insulated further contractor Though harder question, below correctly found barred Circuit, adopted position write separately believe that. 20 * states limits unmixed law, may be, exceeded "to facts." Ante, 172. Two need arise very transaction constitute "demand." 5. "Any cases." Thus, falls squarely Montana. 21 relevance limited. involved duplicative suits, filed month apart challenging working project. suits seem me Assuming, "demands" factually compelled. majority's reasoning plausible second circuit first. "legal significance," jurisdictions. 22 true lawsuit brought federal. However, concurrent jurisdiction. initial choice suing either. Having made choice, it. 978. This presents situation. could Circuit; Circuit. fair first, 973 (collateral "central established, conclusive resolution disputes their jurisdiction ") (emphasis added). addition, considerations comity state/federal circuits. See, e.g., 95-96, 23 rely conception "demand," however. delineation "demand" extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries, justification flexible, judge-made doctrine, situations policy absent. notion "same demand" most guide identifying instances support itself careful examine general 155, 158-164, 974, 976-979. Its anything inflexible demand, apply; neither ended Preclusion must evaluated light doctrine. 24 Collateral said three purposes: "relieve cost vexation multiple lawsuits, conserve resources, preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance adjudication." 414. plain all served foreclosing these fully there. entitled attempt relitigate "after appropriate time," estimates year. Such approach authorize exactly sort designed avoid. unhesitatingly rejection position. III 25 Outside policies consistency much less compelling. At least where, governmental advanced; always force ruling someone else. 173. p. ----. And ruled stare decisis decisions outside original circuit. Conflicts circuits some ways welcomed. Indeed, compelling concern circuits, bind others entirely route followed. spare fighting battle won once. countervailing considerations, am satisfied interest adequate lower court's IV 26 justified, previously immunizes & 1981). Under view join except address contention, considering "more us." 174. it, today's afford blanket protection seeks concur judgment. A. 27 Extending preclusion acceptable supported affirmative policy. not. Judicial simple prevented; litigant black-letter rather another. reason, about repetitious, vexatious, harassing litigation. Finally, remains conflict exists, cuts way. measure certainty even-handed individual B Not circumstances, powerful cut Standefer 447 25, 100 1999, 2008, 64 689 inconsistency dramatic troublesome split; definition, compounds problem. dubious unable employ though disarray extensive. By presumably Hill's like Tenth, despite companies inspections. Furthermore, concedes, today hold companies. result, in, say, First follow Hill, opposite depending third 29 confusing affairs exceeds awkwardness split especially undesirable grants to, imposes detriment on, particular general, persons several themselves accordance varying rules, laws. Other enjoy favorable put up unfavorable Hill. cannot justify abandonment evenhanded rational rules. mere happen elsewhere sufficient uniquely favored disfavored status. 30 misapplication condemned before. Stone Downer 274 225, 47 616, 71 1013 (1927), established certain imports duty-free. suit classification goods imported defendant, Customs Application mean importer, having once judgment, able undersell others, importer compete. "Such lead inequality customs discrimination great injustice confusion." 619. evident Commissioner Sunnen, 333 591, 68 715, 92 898 (1948). There noted flow area. taxpayer "a subsequent principles." 599, 720. Otherwise, preferential treatment. avoided, "is meant create vested rights become obsolete erroneous time, thereby causing inequities among taxpayers." Ibid. 31 real each, escapes strictures solely prevailed. out, "[r]efusal effect give person current law." c (1982).1 C 32 Cases Sunnen merely narrow, becomes intolerable too removed prevailing Even concedes affect "controlling lose favor. Similarly, contends Congress amended make plain, continue reverse itself, en banc, longer keep out apparent if, Canada, impose requirements Canadian authorities. Why Circuits estop prevails? Ninth; contrary. V 33 ensure litigation; ensuring benefits ruling.2 arguing precludes nationwide stretches breaking point. right unique Put differently, immunity rule, point leads results basically principle 34 sum, adopted, adopt, To carry enforcement standards, §§ 7407, 7410, 7412, annually inspects approximately 10% major stationary sources pollution state. Brief 2. Section provides "the administrator representative, presentation credentials shall entry" raised Appeals. Although decided relied re Env't Rep.Cas. (BNA) 1737 (D.Wyo.1980). reached affirmed description illuminating. stated: "[Estoppel] Where, enunciated demand insisting otherwise, fact, distinctly adjudged disputed action, (1924) original). paraphrased "issues [which] (1979). An requires rigid mixed practical matter, often impossible journey pure subtle gradations marked divide." (1982). broader interpretation exception. Moser's language "subsequent demand," common purposes. presenting applied. context, 601-602, 721, (1948) (refusing "separable facts"), reject context. alteration Court's waiting conflicts develop granting petitions certiorari, Solicitor General's circumspection pursue appeals file certiorari petitions. ante. argues, adverse decision, General way knowing party. possibility being bound influence seek unwarranted. lists example I, Yet, taking asserts "thousands businesses affected year participation 114 inspections." 28. unrealistic assume driven unwarranted fear thousands According Restatement, precluded "[t]he involve unrelated, new warranted order take account intervening context avoid laws ." Judgments, part clear prongs earlier distinction perhaps reflected limitation Professor Scott four decades ago, "if erroneously holds gratuitous promise binding, contracts parties." Scott, Estoppel Judgment, 56 Harv.L.Rev. (1942). (res judicata "does [b]ut action") abstract proposition

Category: 8