• Examples of judgments not on the merits:
• Dismissal for lack of jurisd (classic case), improper venue, or failure to join a party
• All other dismissals, except for those under Rule 41(a), are on the merits unless the order states otherwise.
• Thus, a literal reading of Rule 41(b) makes all 12(b)(6) dismissals on the merits unless the order states otherwise.
• Most courts do not read the rule so literally.
• When the dismissal order does not state specifically whether the dismissal is on the merits, most courts distinguish between a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a hopeless complaint, which is on the merits, and a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint that can be fixed easily by correcting a pleading error, which is not on the merits. 

• Whereas claim preclusion applies only where the "claim" in the second action is the same as the one adjudicated in the first action, issue preclusion applies as long as any issue is the same, even though the causes of action are different. 
• Whereas claim preclusion prevents the second suit altogether, collateral estoppel doesn't prevent suit, but merely compels the court to make the same finding of fact on the identical issue that the first court made. 

• Basic Rule: If you have a problem w/ the F-1 judgment, you have to fix it on appeal in F-1, except for a few things (jurisdiction); Cannot fix this on collateral attack in F-2.

• In rem
• if the state asserts its power because of a connection with the D's property, and not with the person, the court exercises in rem jurisd. The only judgment the court can render is one that affects only that particular piece of D's interest in the property.
• In Personam
• If the D has person contacts with the state, the court may exercise in personam jurisd over D. A court with this jurisd may render a personal judgment against the D which can be satisfied out of any property of his within the state. This creates a judgment debt against him which may also be enforced in other states by operation of the FF&C.

Basis for Attack:

• Personal Jurisdiction
• In Rem or Quasi in Rem jurisdiction
• Extrinsic Fraud (Fraud that could not have been ruled on by F-1; Ex: deprived D of his opportunity to appear and defend)
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction

• A D who appeared in the original action without objecting to jurisdiction, or one who unsuccessfully litigated the jurisdictional issue in the first action, may not collaterally attack the judgement.
• The successful objection to jurisdiction may, of course, be repeated on appeal to a court superior to the first trial court; but this is a direct rather than collateral attack.

• When faced with 2 inconsistent judgments, F-3 should honor the judgement last in time. 
• Further, F-3 may not refuse FF&C to an F-2 judgment because the F-2 judgment improperly refused FF&C to an earlier F-1 judgment

1. Judgment not on the merits 
2. Lack of finality
3. Modifiable
4. Fraud in obtaining F-1 judgment
5. Lack of jurisdiction
6. The Land Taboo
7. No Competent Court in F-2
8. Penal Judgments
9. Equity Decrees
10. Public Policy of F-2

Exception to the Iron Law: A judgment procured by fraud

• 1st RS required distinction b/t "intrinsic" & "extrinsic" frauds
• only judgments procured by "extrinsic" frauds (fraud that could not have been ruled on by F-1) permitted the denial of FF&C. 
• Conversely, if intrinsic fraud procured the judgment in F-1, the litigant is not permitted to bring a collateral attack in F-2. Under 1st RS, F-2 cannot deny FF&C to F-1's judgment based on an intrinsic fraud.
• 2nd RS discards this distinction - can bring a collateral attack on either. 

1. Would the federal suit be precluded by the judgment law of state X?
2. If so, do the exclusive jurisdicton provisions of the antitrust law work an implied repeal of §1738?