Also known as: claim preclusion · issue preclusion · res judicata · collateral estoppel
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An umbrella doctrine that prevents relitigation of claims or issues already resolved by a valid final judgment. Claim preclusion bars a second suit on the same claim between the same parties or their privies. Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue of fact or law that was actually and necessarily decided in the prior action.
Carlos Castillo was acquitted of robbing one victim when identity was the only contested issue at trial. The state then charged him with robbing a second victim during the same incident. The acquittal necessarily decided that Castillo was not the perpetrator, so the second prosecution is barred.
Carmen Choi obtained a judgment against one of two joint tortfeasors for the full amount of harm caused by a single accident. She later sued the second tortfeasor on the same facts. The prior judgment determines the preclusive effect on the remaining claim under res judicata principles.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Claire Campbell was acquitted after a jury necessarily found she was not the person who committed the charged act. The state later brought a new prosecution relying on the same factual issue despite having additional evidence. The prior determination bars the second case even though the first jury lacked all relevant proof.
Cade Carpenter lost a securities enforcement action brought by the SEC that established a violation. A private investor then sued Carpenter for damages arising from the identical violation. The investor may offensively preclude relitigation of the violation when fairness to the defendant supports the application.
Corinne Cho sued Coastal Shipping in state court on a contract claim that was dismissed solely because the statute of limitations had run. She filed the identical claim in federal court. The dismissal does not count as a merits adjudication for claim preclusion purposes under the applicable jurisdictional approach.
Colin Chambers financed and directed the litigation strategy of a company in which he held a direct financial interest. After a final judgment resolved an issue against the company, Chambers attempted to relitigate the same issue in a later suit. The prior determination binds him because he assumed control over the first action.
A dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey court orders counts as an adjudication on the merits unless the order states otherwise or rests on one of the narrow exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction. The second suit asserting the same claim is therefore barred.
Yes. A private plaintiff may use a prior judgment offensively against a defendant only when application of preclusion remains fair and equitable in light of all circumstances, including the defendant's incentive and opportunity to litigate the issue fully in the first action.
A nonparty is bound when it assumed control over the earlier action in which it possessed a direct financial or proprietary interest. Once an issue is actually and necessarily decided by a competent court, that determination is conclusive in later suits involving the controlling party.
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) does not itself decide whether a limitations dismissal counts as on the merits for claim preclusion. Jurisdictions may treat such dismissals as non-merits adjudications that leave the substantive claim available in a subsequent court.
…her children pursued their own interests. When the Florida decree was entered the legatees unsuccessfully urged it as res judicata of the Delaware dispute. In a decree dated Jan. 13, 1956, the Delaware Chancellor ruled that the trust and power of appointment were valid under the applicable Delaware law, and that the…