Supreme Court
Fleming v. Wilson
- Case number: 22-0166
- Legal category: Res Judicata
- Subtype: Elements of Res Judicata
- Set for oral argument: October 24, 2023
Case Summary
The issue in this case is whether Texas law recognizes implied-agreement privity for collateral estoppel purposes based on an alleged implied agreement to be bound to a bellwether trial.
George Fleming and his law firm represented thousands of plaintiffs in securing a product-liability settlement. Fleming allegedly deducted costs from his clients’ settlements without authorization, and approximately 4,000 plaintiffs sued for fiduciary and contractual breaches. The trial court adopted the parties’ agreed trial plan, selected a subset of six bellwether plaintiffs, and severed those claims from the remaining case.
After Fleming prevailed at the bellwether plaintiffs’ trial, he moved for summary judgment, contending that his trial win collaterally estopped the remaining plaintiffs from litigating the same issues. The trial court agreed and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that Fleming failed to establish that the remaining plaintiffs were in privity with the bellwether plaintiffs such that they were bound by the verdict. The court of appeals rejected Fleming’s argument that the plaintiffs had conceded privity with the bellwether plaintiffs by invoking offensive collateral estoppel against Fleming in their pleading. It also rejected the argument that the bellwether plaintiffs’ similar allegations and use of the same counsel established privity.
Fleming petitioned for review, arguing that the Supreme Court should adopt frameworks from other contexts that permit an implied agreement to establish privity for collateral estoppel purposes and that the evidence warrants finding such privity in this case. The Court granted review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.