Also known as: between the same parties
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin phrase denoting that a prior judgment on the merits bars any subsequent action for damages between identical parties. The phrase captures the requirement of party identity that triggers claim preclusion and issue preclusion across jurisdictions.
MetroBuild agreed to indemnify Ironspan for cost overruns on a city stadium project and directed Ironspan's counsel and trial strategy in the first suit. After Ironspan lost on the merits, MetroBuild filed its own action against the city seeking the same overruns. The court treats MetroBuild as bound because the prior judgment resolved the identical issue between the same parties under inter eosdem principles.
Harbor Consortium financed and directed strategy for a carrier's challenge to a port fee schedule. After the carrier lost, Harbor Consortium brought its own refund claim using the same methodology. The court applies inter eosdem to hold that Harbor Consortium's control created privity and bars relitigation of the fee issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Summit Therapeutics obtained an ex parte TRO against United Care in a contract dispute. United Care later demanded a jury trial on the same underlying access agreement. The court recognizes that inter eosdem bars any later damages action between the identical parties on issues already decided.
After acquittal on one set of charges, the government pursued a second prosecution against the identical defendants for conduct arising from the same transaction. The court invokes inter eosdem to determine whether the prior acquittal precludes any later damages claim between the same parties.
Defendants were convicted of conspiracy and then faced trial on the underlying substantive offenses involving the same participants. The court applies inter eosdem to assess whether the prior conspiracy judgment bars any subsequent damages action between the identical parties.
Riverlight Press obtained a judgment against National News Network for an online article distributed in multiple states. When Riverlight later attempted a second action in another jurisdiction for the identical publication, the court holds that inter eosdem bars the new suit between the same parties.
No. A nonparty that assumes control over prior litigation with a direct financial interest is treated as a party for preclusion purposes. The doctrine therefore bars relitigation even when the later litigant never appeared on the docket.
Under the single-publication rule, one judgment on the merits for a given aggregate communication bars any later action between the identical parties for damages arising from that same publication in any jurisdiction.
Yes. Issue preclusion operates between the same parties or their privies even when the later suit rests on a different legal theory, provided the identical issue was actually and necessarily decided in the first action.
…leading text-books, it is laid down that if a witness is kept away by the adverse party, his testimony, taken on a former trial between the same parties upon the same issues, may be given in evidence. 1 Greenl. Evid., sect. 163; 1 Taylor, Evid., sect. 446. Mr. Wharton (1 Whart. Evid., sect. 178) seemingly limits the rule somewhat, and…