Also known as:non-mutual estoppel · nonmutual collateral estoppel · nonmutual issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine permitting a party who was not involved in prior litigation to preclude an opponent from relitigating an issue that the opponent fully and fairly litigated and lost in the earlier proceeding. Application is allowed only when doing so is fair and equitable to the party to be bound in light of all circumstances.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Private Plaintiff Uses Prior SEC Judgment
The Securities and Exchange Commission sues Nolan Nunez and obtains a final judgment after trial establishing that Nunez knowingly violated securities laws by misrepresenting company finances. Naomi Norton, a shareholder who purchased stock during the same period but was not a party to the SEC action, later sues Nunez for damages and moves to prevent Nunez from contesting the knowing-violation finding. The court grants the motion because Nunez had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding and the circumstances make offensive use equitable.
Defendant Attempts to Bind Government
Nightingale Healthcare is convicted after a jury trial of bribing a government official. Nigel Nelson, the official, is later prosecuted for accepting the bribes and moves to bar the government from relitigating whether the bribes occurred, citing the prior acquittal of a co-defendant on related charges. The court denies the motion because nonmutual estoppel may not be invoked against the government in a criminal prosecution even when the issue was decided in an earlier proceeding.
Standefer v. United States447 U.S. 10, 22 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 1999, 2007 n. 16, 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When may a nonparty use issue preclusion offensively against a defendant who litigated and lost an issue in an earlier case?+
A nonparty may use issue preclusion offensively when the issue was actually litigated, necessarily decided, and essential to a valid final judgment, and when the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The central additional requirement is that applying preclusion must be fair and equitable to the defendant under all the circumstances.
Supporting sources
What fairness factors does a court consider before allowing offensive nonmutual issue preclusion?+
A court considers whether the defendant had a strong incentive to litigate the issue in the first action, whether the defendant could foresee future suits, whether the new plaintiff could have joined the earlier case, whether inconsistent judgments exist, and whether the defendant lacked procedural protections in the first proceeding that would be available later.
Supporting sources
May a criminal defendant invoke nonmutual estoppel against the government based on an earlier acquittal of a co-defendant?+
No. Nonmutual estoppel may not be applied against the government in a criminal prosecution. The government is not bound by an acquittal of another person even when the same issue arises in a later case against a different defendant.
Supporting sources
Does the fact that the first action was brought by a government regulator prevent a private plaintiff from using offensive nonmutual issue preclusion?+
No. A private plaintiff may rely on findings from a prior government enforcement action provided the usual elements of issue preclusion are met and application of preclusion is fair to the defendant under all the circumstances.
Supporting sources
. A At common law, the subject of principals and accessories was riddled with “intricate” distinctions. 2 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 231 (1883). In felony cases,…
Civil ProcedureVerdicts and judgments · Effect; claim and issue preclusionUBEFoundational