390 U.S. 102 (1968)
The appellate court dismissed the insurer's appeal because it found that the insurer had failed to join the insured as an indispensable party.
- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment party because he would have prevented diversity jurisdiction, and remanded the case for consideration of the issues raised on appeal.
- Although the insured was an indispensable party, the estates' interest in an adequate remedy would have been harmed by allowing only a state court action after fully litigating the judgment.
- The insured was not harmed by the judgment for the estates because he was not bound by it, and it was unlikely that the judgment against the insurer would have prevented him from relitigating his interests.
- Relief could be shaped to meet the criteria of Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, so that the action could proceed.
- The lower court had to next consider issues raised on appeal that had not been raised at trial.
The Court vacated the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for consideration of issues raised on appeal that had not been considered and, if the appellate court affirmed the district court as to those issues, for an appropriate disposition to preserve the district court's judgment and protect the interests of nonjoined persons.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.