Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

United States Supreme Court
439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)

Play video

Facts

Shore (plaintiff) brought a stockholder’s class action against Parklane Hosiery Co. (Parklane) (defendant), alleging that Parklane had issued a proxy statement that contained materially false and misleading information and statements, directly in violation of federal securities laws and the regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Before the case went to trial, the SEC also sued Parklane, likewise alleging that the proxy statement Shore complained of contained materially false and misleading information and statements. Following a nonjury trial, the district court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the SEC, finding that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Shore then moved for partial summary judgment against Parklane, asserting that Parklane was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether the proxy statement contained materially false and misleading statements, as was determined in the SEC lawsuit. The district court denied the motion on the ground that such an application of collateral estoppel would deny Parklane its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial only with respect to issues of fact not already adjudicated in a prior proceeding. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)

Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership