Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel
Res judicata (claim preclusion) bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action; collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of issues actually decided.
Overview
Preclusion doctrines — res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) — promote judicial efficiency and finality by preventing parties from relitigating matters already resolved.
Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars a party from raising any claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties. Three requirements must be met: (1) a final judgment on the merits in the first action; (2) the same parties (or those in privity); and (3) the same cause of action or claim. Most jurisdictions define "same claim" broadly using a transactional test — all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence must be raised in a single action or are barred.
Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigation of specific issues of fact or law that were actually litigated, actually decided, and necessary to the judgment in a prior action. Unlike claim preclusion, it can apply even when the second suit involves different claims. Requirements: (1) the issue was actually litigated; (2) actually decided; (3) the decision was necessary to the judgment; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
Parklane Hosiery v. Shore established that offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is available at the court's discretion, allowing a plaintiff who was not a party to the first action to use a prior judgment against the defendant. However, defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel (allowing a new defendant to use a prior judgment) is more readily available.
Key Takeaway
Claim preclusion bars entire claims that were or could have been raised. Issue preclusion bars specific issues that were actually litigated and decided. Both require a final judgment and the same party (or mutuality exception).
Exam Tip
Distinguish claim preclusion from issue preclusion — they have different elements. For claim preclusion, use the transactional test. For issue preclusion, check all four elements carefully, especially 'actually litigated' and 'necessary to the judgment.'
Landmark Cases (7)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion?
Claim preclusion bars an entire cause of action that was or could have been raised in a prior suit. Issue preclusion bars only specific issues that were actually litigated, decided, and necessary to the prior judgment. Claim preclusion is broader; issue preclusion is more targeted.
What is non-mutual collateral estoppel?
Non-mutual collateral estoppel allows a party who was not involved in the first action to use the prior judgment. Offensive use (by a new plaintiff against the same defendant) is discretionary per Parklane Hosiery. Defensive use (by a new defendant against the same plaintiff) is more readily available.
Master Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel with Briefly
AI-powered tools built for law students. Generate case briefs, practice cold calls, and ace your civil procedure exam.