Also known as: direct estoppels · issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An issue-preclusion doctrine that bars relitigation of a matter actually and necessarily decided in a prior judgment when the current action rests on the same cause of action as the earlier suit.
State prosecutors charged Delilah Duran with robbery after a jury acquitted her on the ground that another person committed the act. The acquittal rested on the ultimate factual issue of identity even though the first jury lacked some later-discovered evidence. Direct estoppel prevents the state from prosecuting Duran again on the same robbery charge.
The SEC obtained a judgment against Duffy Construction for violating securities laws on a particular offering. A private investor who purchased the same securities then sued Duffy Construction for damages arising from that identical offering. Direct estoppel allows the investor to rely on the prior finding of violation because the second suit rests on the same cause of action.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Harbor Consortium financed and directed an earlier suit by a carrier challenging a port fee schedule. After the carrier lost, Harbor Consortium filed its own action seeking a refund of the identical fees under the same calculation methodology. Direct estoppel precludes Harbor Consortium from relitigating the validity of the fee schedule.
Markman sued Westview Instruments on two patent claims arising from the same instrument. After Markman elected to sever the claims and lost the first, he attempted to relitigate the identical infringement issue in the second action on the same patent. Direct estoppel bars the second suit because both actions share the same cause of action.
A former employee obtained an injunction against General Motors in one state court. Baker, who had directed the employee's litigation and held a direct financial interest in the outcome, later filed a separate action in another state seeking the same relief against General Motors on the identical employment contract. Direct estoppel prevents Baker from relitigating the contract issue.
Minton sued his former attorneys for malpractice arising from a patent case that had been dismissed. After losing on the malpractice claim in federal court, Minton filed a second action in state court alleging the identical theory of negligent claim drafting on the same patent. Direct estoppel bars the state-court action because both suits rest on the same cause of action.
Direct estoppel applies when the prior judgment and the present suit rest on the same cause of action. Collateral estoppel applies when the prior judgment rests on a different claim.
Supporting sources
Subsequent suits on claims already decided are usually extinguished entirely by claim preclusion, leaving few occasions for direct estoppel to operate.
Supporting sources
Yes. The doctrine applies only when the issue was actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the prior action on the same claim.
No. Direct estoppel requires that both actions rest on the identical cause of action. A different cause of action triggers collateral estoppel analysis instead.
Supporting sources
…and Procedure § 2522, pp. 244-246 (2d ed. 1995). See also Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore , 439 U. S. 322, 335-337 (1979) (issue preclusion absent mutuality of parties does not violate Seventh Amendment, although common law as it existed in 1791 permitted issue preclusion only when there was mutuality). [^maj-21]: The…