Also known as: identity of the parties · same parties
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A relationship between two parties who are so close that a judgment against one prevents later action against the other because of res judicata.
Isabella Ingram sued Insight Consulting for defamation after a company report accused her of misconduct. The court entered judgment on the merits in her favor. When Isabella later filed a second damages action in another jurisdiction based on the same statements, the court dismissed it because the parties were identical.
Isla Ireland financed and directed an earlier suit by her subsidiary against Ironclad Industries over a contract dispute. After the subsidiary lost on a key factual issue, Isla attempted to relitigate the same issue in her own action. The court held her bound because she had assumed control of the prior litigation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Israel Irving obtained a state-court judgment against Interlink Communications for breach of a supply contract. He then filed a federal diversity action seeking the same damages. The federal court refused to entertain the claim because the parties were the same and the prior judgment was on the merits.
Ismael Ibrahim sued Iris Energy in federal court and served process under Federal Rule 4. Iris argued that state law required different service. The court applied the federal rule because the question concerned the identity of parties and the manner of commencing suit against them.
Iain Irons was acquitted in a federal prosecution for polygamy. The government later charged him again with the same conduct involving the same spouse. The court dismissed the second indictment because the parties were identical and the prior acquittal resolved the factual issue.
Isabelle Inman was acquitted of robbery. The government later introduced testimony from the robbery victim in a separate prosecution for an unrelated offense. The court admitted the testimony because the second case involved different parties and a different charge.
Identity of parties extends to privies when a nonparty assumed control over prior litigation in which it had a direct financial interest. Once an issue is actually and necessarily decided, the determination is conclusive in later suits involving the same parties or their privies.
Supporting sources
No. Practical control over litigation plus a direct proprietary interest can create the necessary relationship even without formal appearance as a party.
Supporting sources
A deposition taken in an earlier action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties or their representatives to the same extent as if taken in the later action.
Supporting sources
…a litigation for a federal court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claim by the same parties in a State court?" 326 U. S., at 109.[^maj-5] Respondent, by placing primary reliance on York and Ragan , suggests that the Erie doctrine acts as a check on the Federal Rules of Civil…