Also known as: collateral estoppel · collateral estoppel doctrine · issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that bars relitigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid final judgment in a prior action. The doctrine applies between the same parties or their privies and extends to both defensive and offensive nonmutual uses when fairness to the party to be bound is satisfied.
Dominic Drake was acquitted of robbing one poker player after the jury rejected the only contested evidence of his identity as a robber. The state then charged him with robbing a second player at the same game on the same night. Because the acquittal necessarily decided that Drake was not present, the second prosecution is barred.
Diana Delgado was acquitted of arson at a warehouse after the jury found she was not the person who set the fire. The state later charged her with arson at an adjacent building based on the same eyewitness testimony that the first jury had rejected. The prior acquittal on identity bars the second prosecution even though additional evidence has since surfaced.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dillon Energy lost an SEC enforcement action after a full trial in which the court found it had issued a materially false proxy statement. Private shareholders later sued Dillon Energy for damages arising from the same statement and moved for summary judgment on the falsity element. The court may grant the motion because offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is fair under the circumstances.
Duarte Shipping financed and directed every strategic decision in a prior suit brought by one of its subsidiaries challenging a port fee. After the subsidiary lost on the validity of the fee schedule, Duarte Shipping filed its own refund action raising the identical issue. The prior determination binds Duarte Shipping because it controlled the earlier litigation in which it held a direct financial interest.
Diamond Manufacturing lost a patent infringement suit against one competitor after the court held the patent invalid. A second competitor later sued Diamond Manufacturing for infringement of the same patent. Diamond Manufacturing is precluded from relitigating validity even though the second competitor was not a party to the first action.
Dwight Dorsey sued a hospital in state court for breach of a construction contract. While that action was pending, the hospital filed a federal declaratory judgment action on the same contract issues. The federal court stayed its proceeding to avoid duplicative litigation that could produce inconsistent findings on the same issues.
The doctrine bars a second prosecution when an ultimate issue of fact, such as the defendant's identity, was decided in the defendant's favor by a valid final judgment in the first trial. The bar applies even if the second prosecution involves a different victim or additional evidence that the first jury never heard.
Supporting sources
Yes, offensive nonmutual issue preclusion is permitted when it is fair to the defendant in light of all the circumstances. Fairness turns on whether the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, had sufficient incentive to defend vigorously, and would not face procedural disadvantages in the second action.
Supporting sources
Yes, a nonparty that assumed control over litigation in which it held a direct financial or proprietary interest is bound by the resulting judgment on issues actually and necessarily decided. The doctrine treats the controlling nonparty as if it were a party for preclusion purposes.
Supporting sources
Courts examine what the acquittals necessarily decided. If the acquittals resolved a factual issue common to the hung counts in the defendant's favor, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of that issue even though the jury failed to reach a verdict on the remaining counts.
Supporting sources
…the extensive involvement from the inception of this litigation by the Department of State and AID.[^maj-19] Under principles of collateral estoppel, these agencies are precluded from subsequently relitigating the issues decided in this suit. "[O]ne who prosecutes or defends a suit in the name of another to establish and protect his…