Also known as: bar · bars · barred · barring · barring claims · bar to suit · claim-preclusive bar
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle under which a valid and final judgment on the merits against a claimant precludes the claimant and those in privity from suing again on the same cause of action in the rendering state or any other state. The bar applies even when new legal grounds are asserted if those grounds could have been raised in the first action.
Beatrice Brown sold land to Brittany Bell under a contract containing oral promises about boundary fencing. At closing the deed omitted those promises. After discovering the seller had concealed a known boundary dispute, Bell sued for fraud. The court permitted the claim to proceed because merger of the contract into the deed does not bar actions grounded in fraud.
Bobby Brady advertised himself as a certified tax specialist without identifying any approved certifying body. A client who relied on the claim later discovered Brady lacked the required accreditation. The disciplinary authority barred the representation because the advertisement violated the certification disclosure rule.
Barbara Bennett stored equipment in a shared warehouse controlled by Blackwood Technologies. After a payment dispute the company changed the locks and denied Bennett entry. Bennett sued for conversion. The court held that barring access to the chattel constituted the required interference with possession.
Boubacar Bah committed an offense in 1995. The statute of limitations expired in 2005. In 2008 the legislature extended the limitations period and the state filed charges. The court dismissed the prosecution because the retroactive revival of a time-barred case violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Bethany Boyd was confined to a room after her employer threatened to fire her family members if she left. She later sued for false imprisonment. The court refused to treat her submission as consent that would bar the action because the duress rendered any consent ineffective.
Bristol Steel purchased equipment after relying on a seller's false statement about capacity. An internal report the buyer ignored would have revealed the falsity. When Bristol sued for fraud the court held that its own negligence did not bar recovery because justifiable reliance on a fraudulent misrepresentation is not defeated by contributory negligence.
Yes. A valid final judgment on the merits bars relitigation of the same cause of action even when the second suit invokes new legal grounds, provided those grounds could have been raised in the first action.
The bar extends to the claimant and all persons in privity with the claimant, preventing them from suing again on the same cause of action in any jurisdiction.
Merger does not bar claims based on fraud, mutual mistake, or independent collateral promises whose nature and the parties' intent show they were not meant to merge into the deed.
…holding was that although the plaintiff had filed his federal complaint within the state period of limitations, his action was barred because the federal marshal did not serve a summons on the defendant until after the limitations period had run. I think that the decision was wrong. At most, application of the Federal…