Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:



Docket No.: 09-1205
Certiorari Granted: 09/28/10
Argued: January 18, 2011
Decided: 06/16/11


Anti-Injunction Act, Civil Procedure, Due Process, FOIA, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, attorney fees, res judicata, stare decisis

PartyNames: Keith Smith, et al. v. Bayer Corporation
Petitioner: Keith Smith, et al.
Respondent: Bayer Corporation

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: 593 F.3d 716

Keith Smith, et al.
Bayer Corporation
Question Presented:

1. Among the elements for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to be used in support of the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act are requirements that the state parties sought to be estopped are the same parties or in privity with parties to the prior federal litigation and that issues necessary to the resolution of the proceedings are also identical. In determining whether issues are identical, courts have also recognized that state courts should have discretion to apply their own procedural rules in a manner different from their federal counterparts. Can the district court's injunction be affirmed when neither the parties sought to be estopped nor the issues presented are identical? 2. It is axiomatic that everyone should have his own day in court and that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he has not been made a party by designation or service of process. One exception to this rule are absent members of a class in a properly conducted class action because of the dueprocess protections accorded such absent members once class certification has been granted. Does a district court have personal jurisdiction over absent members of a class for purposes of enjoining them from seeking class certification in state court when a properly conducted class action had never existed before the district court because it had denied class certification and due-~process protections had never been afforded the absent members?


Did a lower court erroneously prevent a group of plaintiffs from proceeding with a class-action lawsuit over a cholesterol-lowering drug that was removed from the market in 2001?



Listen to Oral Argument in SMITH v. BAYER CORP.
Holding: reversed
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)