Also known as: same transaction or occurrence · transaction or occurrence · transaction-or-occurrence test · same transaction test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard used in civil-procedure rules to decide whether claims or parties may or must be joined in one action. The standard is met when the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
Samantha Stone sued Stonehaven Properties in federal court for underpayment on a single construction contract governed by federal wage rules. Stonehaven answered and asserted a state-law breach claim for defective work on the identical project. The counterclaim shares the common nucleus because both turn on the same contract performance facts.
Simon Stern sued Sapphire Holdings in federal court alleging violation of a federal safety statute concerning a single medical device. He also pleaded state negligence claims arising from the identical implantation surgery and device failure. The state claims share the common nucleus because the same device history and complications supply the operative facts for both.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sabrina Shah and Spencer Silver were named codefendants in a federal action arising from a joint construction contract. Sabrina filed a crossclaim against Spencer for contribution on the same contract performance. The crossclaim satisfies the standard because it arises directly from the transaction that is the subject of the original complaint.
Sasha Stone sued Sterling Dynamics alleging federal wage violations on one public project and state breach claims on three unrelated jobs. The court required the state claims to be pleaded in separate counts because the unrelated jobs constitute distinct transactions lacking a common nucleus with the federal claim.
Sylvia Santos was acquitted of robbing one victim during a single poker game. The state then charged her with robbing a second victim at the identical game. The second prosecution is barred because both charges arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
Samantha Stone signed an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause. She later sued for wrongful termination and also asserted state wage claims arising from the same period of employment. The wage claims must be arbitrated because they arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the termination dispute.
The claims must derive from the same transaction or occurrence such that a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try them together in one proceeding. Shared operative facts satisfy the standard even if the legal elements differ.
Modern rules and double-jeopardy doctrine have shifted to the same-transaction test because it better promotes judicial economy and avoids piecemeal litigation. The same-evidence test is no longer controlling.
A claim must be pleaded if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Failure to assert it bars the claim in a later action.
A crossclaim is permitted when it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim. The crossclaim may also seek contribution or indemnity.
Claims founded on separate transactions or occurrences should be stated in separate counts when doing so promotes clarity. Claims sharing a common nucleus may be pleaded together.
…of related claims in a single lawsuit. Rule 13 makes compulsory (upon pain of a bar) all counterclaims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence from which the plaintiff's claim arose. Rule 14 extends this compulsion to third-party defendants. Rule 18 permits very broad joinder of claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party…