Splitting a cause of action

SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION. The bringing an action for only a part of the cause of action. This is not permitted either at law nor in equity. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 4167.

References in periodicals archive ?
The main argument is that the rule against splitting a cause of action does hot always contribute to an economically efficient legal system.
The article concludes by proposing to abolish the strict and broad rule against splitting a cause of action that is being applied in contemporary common law, and instead argues in favour of a more lenient and flexible rule.
(63) By contrast, under a more flexible system--such as the model presented in Part V--that allows splitting a cause of action, plaintiffs are not forced to press their claims to the extreme.
But under the rule against splitting a cause of action, plaintiffs are forced to delay their legitimate claim for the first remedy until they can provide sufficient evidence for all remedies.
The discussion of the aggravating effects of the rule against splitting a cause of action in Part II.B, revealed that the pro-defendant effects of the rule may cause plaintiffs to counteract the skew by asserting meritless claims and remedies in court.
It is clear that the rule against splitting a cause of action is a major obstacle to the use of mediator settlement strategies.
(156) Applying this consideration to the rule against splitting a cause of action suggests that a broad-scope of this rule obstructs the clarification of the strengths and weaknesses of the parties because the many issues, claims, and remedies involved increase the uncertainty about the parties' chances at trial and diminish the chances of out-of-court settlement.
(173) Some of the observations presented in that article apply here as well with regard to cause of action estoppel and the rule against splitting a cause of action.
All of these reasons are considered sufficient for splitting a cause of action into different stages, so that cause of action estoppel does not apply to it.
(187) In such a case the plaintiff has no legitimate reason for splitting a cause of action, contrary to the cases mentioned by Rashbatz.
I therefore propose to establish a more balanced rule that would replace the current broad-scope rules of cause of action estoppel and the rule against splitting a cause of action.