October Term 2007 · Docket 07-371

Does a prior lawsuit bind a stranger to that case?

The dispute centers on whether a non-party can be bound by a prior judgment.

Official caption
Taylor v. Sturgell
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Rosenbaum argued Taylor had no legal relationship with prior parties.

    Mr. Hallward-Driemeier argued the privity finding follows established principles.

    Ms. Stetson addressed the meaning of privity to avoid a freewheeling test.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the limits of res judicata for non-parties.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Taylor wants the prior judgment to have no effect on his case.

Sturgell wants the prior judgment to bind Taylor.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Taylor argues a lawsuit does not decide the rights of non-parties.

Sturgell argues the lower court correctly found privity.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Souter asked why the lack of collusion matters.

Justice Alito asked if the facts show collusion to avoid preclusion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can be bound by prior judgments.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON