Also known as: claim-preclusion · res judicata (claim)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that bars a party from relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits in a prior action between the same parties. The doctrine requires identity of parties, a final judgment, and the same claim under the transactional test used in most jurisdictions. It extinguishes the claim entirely whether the prior judgment favored the plaintiff through merger or the defendant through bar.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Caleb Chang sued Cedar Creek Farms in State A court for breach of a supply contract. The court dismissed the action with prejudice because the four-year limitations period had run and State A law treats such dismissals as adjudications on the merits. Chang then filed the identical claim in federal court in State B, where the limitations period is longer. The federal court must apply State A preclusion law to determine whether the dismissal bars the new suit.
Corinne Cho and other providers brought a facial challenge to a state admitting-privileges statute and lost. After the statute took effect and imposed concrete burdens on clinics, Cho filed a new action asserting an as-applied challenge based on post-enforcement evidence. The court permitted the second suit because the new facts created a distinct claim not barred by the earlier facial ruling.
Christopher Collins filed a FOIA suit seeking FAA documents after his close friend Greg Herr had already lost an identical suit. The court refused to treat Collins as bound by Herr’s judgment because the two men were not in privity and Collins had not controlled or been represented in the earlier action.
Camila Cervantes obtained a state-court injunction against General Motors that restricted certain testimony in product-liability cases. When a different plaintiff later sued General Motors in federal court, the court held that the prior injunction could not bind the new plaintiff because claim preclusion operates only between parties to the first action or their privies.
Claim preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits, identity of parties or their privies, identity of the claim under the transactional test, and a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first action.
Supporting sources
No. Under Semtek, Rule 41(b) does not itself decide whether a limitations dismissal counts as on the merits for preclusion purposes. The rendering jurisdiction’s own law controls that characterization.
…meaning intended in those many statements to the effect that a judgment “on the merits” triggers the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion. See, e. g. , Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore , 439 U. S. 322, 326, n. 5 (1979) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving…
…which was also denied. Taylor then filed suit in District Court. That suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by claim preclusion
…The fact that several petitioners had previously brought the unsuccessful facial challenge in Abbott does not mean that claim preclusion
…94, 105 (1980) (requiring “a final judgment on the merits” before a §1983 would be barred in federal court under the doctrine of claim preclusion
…matter would, of course, deserve full faith and credit under section 11603(g) of ICARA and, perhaps, if necessary, issue and claim preclusion
Supporting sources
Claim preclusion bars an entire claim that could have been raised in the first suit. Issue preclusion prevents relitigation only of issues actually litigated and necessarily decided, even if the second suit involves a different claim.
Supporting sources
It can, if the jurisdiction treats all theories of recovery for a single accident as one claim and the plaintiff already obtained a final judgment on that claim against the first defendant.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the claim is the same and the plaintiff had a full opportunity to join those defendants in the original suit. The doctrine focuses on the plaintiff’s claim rather than the identity of every possible defendant.
Supporting sources