Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lytle Vs. Household Mfg., Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 20, 1990

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

53 entries 6 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Dairy Queen, Inc. Vs. Wood US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1962
  2. Curtis Vs. Loether US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1974
  3. Beacon theatres, Inc. Vs. Westover US Supreme Court · May 25, 1959
  4. Granfinanciera, S.A. Vs. Nordberg US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1989
  5. Sure-tan, Inc. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1984
  6. Youakim Vs. Miller US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1976
  7. Lytle v. Household
    Search
  8. Mfg., Inc. - 494 U.S. 545 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Lytle v. Household
    Search
  9. Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545 (1990) Lytle v. Household
    Search
  10. he would have been entitled to a jury trial on all issues common to them and his Title VII equitable claims, Curtis v. Loether
    Search
  11. have been required to resolve the legal claims before the court considered the equitable claims, Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
    Search
  12. U. S. 469 , 369 U. S. 473 . The holding in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  13. rather than to accord the trial court's factual findings collateral estoppel effect. See, e.g., Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg
    Search
  14. p. 494 U. S. 556 . JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  15. claims, Lytle would have been entitled to a jury trial on those claims. See Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  16. U. S. 500 , 359 U. S. 510 -511 (1959) (footnote omitted). Accord, Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
    Search
  17. because Lytle was required to join his legal and equitable claims to avoid the bar of res judicata. See Harnett v. Billman
    Search
  18. determinations. Instead, we have reversed and remanded each case in its entirety for a trial before a jury. See Meeker v. Ambassador
    Search
  19. Tull v. United
    Search
  20. from multiple lawsuits and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and it conserves judicial resources. Montana v. United
    Search
  21. which a trial court erroneously concludes that a claim is equitable, rather than legal, see, e.g., Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
    Search
  22. or that resolution of an equitable claim can precede resolution of a legal claim, see, e.g., Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
    Search
  23. the court does not weigh the evidence, but draws all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty
    Search
  24. long recognized, a jury and a judge can draw different conclusions from the same evidence. See, e.g., 84 U. S. v. Stout
    Search
  25. Under Fourth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff does not have a right to a jury trial on a Title VII claim. See Keller v. Prince
    Search
  26. whether a plaintiff seeking relief under Title VII has a right to a jury trial. See Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers v. Terry
    Search
  27. to apply collateral estoppel in this situation directly conflicts with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hussein v. Oshkosh
    Search
  28. claims in light of this Court's decision in Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  29. Washington v. Yakima
    Search
  30. court determinations is not a sensible exercise of this Court's discretion. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  31. U. S. 883 , 467 U. S. 896 , n. 7 (1984). Cf. Piccirillo v. New
    Search
  32. Moreover, vacating the District Court's judgment avoids the possibility of inconsistent determinations. See Montana v. United
    Search
  33. of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ante at 494 U. S. 548 . As Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  34. This Court's usual practice is to decline to address questions raised for the first time here. See United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Lytle v. Household
    Search
  36. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  37. of the Court. In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
    Search
  38. See Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  39. Accord, Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
    Search
  40. See Harnett v. Billman
    Search
  41. See Meeker v. Ambassador
    Search
  42. Montana v. United
    Search
  43. Anderson v. Liberty
    Search
  44. U. S. v. Stout
    Search
  45. See Keller v. Prince
    Search
  46. See Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers v. Terry
    Search
  47. Hussein v. Oshkosh
    Search
  48. Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  49. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  50. Cf. Piccirillo v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial