privity
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 324 U.S. 9 - Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · 1945Most cited · 946 citing opinions
injunctions
This is derived from the commonlaw doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in 'privity' with them, represented by them or subject to their control. In essence it is that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding.
How the Supreme Court has restated “privity”
Each Supreme Court definition of “privity,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “privity”
Court decisions citing the 8 opinions that defined “privity” — 3,024 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 8 definitions, chronological · 1803–1945
- ORIGINAL
In the language of the books, there is a privity between the assignor and his immediate assignee; but no privity is perceived between the assignor and his remote assignee. The implied promise growing out of the indorsement, is not considered as having been made assignable by the act of assembly, and therefore the assignee of that promise cannot maintain an action of indebitatus assumpsit on it.
between assignor and assignee
The opinion of the Court to be, that the verdict and judgment in the case of Susan Davis against Swann, were not conclusive evidence in the present case. There was no privity between Swann and Wood; they were to be considered as perfectly distinct persons. Wood had a right to defend his own title, which he did not derive from Swann.
judgment as evidence between strangers
The term privity denotes mutual succession or relationship to the same rights of property. Privies are divided by Lord Coke into three classes,—1st, privies in blood; 2d, privies in law; and 3d, privies by estate. The doctrine of estoppel, however, so far as it applies to persons falling under these denominations, applies to them under one and the same principle, namely, that a party claiming through another is estopped by that which estopped that other respecting the same subject-matter.
Where administrations are granted to different persons in different states, they are so far deemed independent of each other that a judgment obtained against one will furnish no right of action against the other, to affect assets received by the latter in virtue of his own administration; for, in contemplation of law, there is no privity between him and the other administrator.
between administrators in different states
one who prosecutes or defends a suit in the name of another, to establish and protect his own right, or who assists in the prosecution or defense of an action in aid of some interest of his own, and who does this openly, to the knowledge of the opposing party, is as much bound by the judgment, and as fully entitled to avail himself of it, as an estoppel against an adversary party, as he would be if he had been a party to the record.
res judicata
As used when dealing with the estoppel of a judgment, privity denotes mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property. ... The ground upon which privies are bound by a judgment, ... 'is, that they are identified with him in interest; and wherever this identity is found to exist, all are alike concluded. Hence, all privies, whether in estate, in blood, or in law, are estopped from litigating that which is conclusive upon him with whom they are in privity.
estoppel by judgment
In the case of individual owners it has been commonly held or declared that privity as used in the statute means some personal participation of the owner in the fault or negligence which caused or contributed to the loss or injury.