Also known as:precludes from · precluded from · precluding from · preclusion from · bar from · prevent from
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A prohibition that prevents a party from asserting a claim, right, or defense. The prohibition arises from the party's prior conduct, a final judgment, or a procedural rule that the governing statute or doctrine treats as conclusive.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Mitigation Efforts Preserve Recovery
Priya Prasad contracted with Paragon Construction to renovate her office building. After Paragon breached by walking off the job, Priya contacted ten other contractors seeking replacement bids. She received only two offers, each requiring her to abandon key design features she had specified in the original contract. Priya rejected both offers and sued Paragon for the full contract price. Because her search for substitute performance was reasonable even though unsuccessful, she is not barred from recovering the full amount.
Negligence Bars Forgery Claim
Paula Pierce left her checkbook unlocked in a shared office. A coworker forged her signature on a $5,000 check and cashed it at Pioneer Energy's branch. The bank paid the instrument in good faith. Because Paula's failure to safeguard the check substantially contributed to the forgery, she is barred from asserting the forgery against the bank.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Restatements
Casebooks
Prior Judgment Blocks New Suit
Priscilla Parks obtained a final judgment against one of several joint tortfeasors for injuries from a single car accident. She later filed a second action against the remaining defendants seeking damages for the same injuries. Because the prior judgment satisfied the elements of claim preclusion under the governing rules, Priscilla is barred from pursuing the second suit.
Baker v. General Motors Corp.522 U.S. 222, 246 (1998)
Collateral Attack on Judgment Barred
Pierre Poulin lost a state-court action and later sought to challenge the judgment in federal court on jurisdictional grounds. The federal court determined that the state court had jurisdiction and that principles of finality applied. Because the circumstances made a collateral attack inequitable, Pierre is barred from relitigating the validity of the judgment.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt579 U.S. 582 (2016)
Procedural Default Prevents Claim
Penelope Price failed to raise a constitutional objection during her state criminal trial. She later attempted to assert the same objection in a federal habeas proceeding. Because the state procedural rules required timely presentation of the claim, Penelope is barred from raising it in the federal action.
Little v. Streater452 U.S. 1 (1981)
Residency Requirement Blocks Benefit
Paul Peterson moved to a new county and immediately applied for county medical assistance. The county denied the application under a one-year residency rule. Because the residency requirement was valid and Paul had not satisfied it, he is barred from receiving the benefits until the waiting period expires.
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County415 U.S. 250 (1974)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a party's reasonable but unsuccessful mitigation efforts avoid the bar on recovery?+
A party who makes reasonable efforts to avoid loss is not barred from recovery even if those efforts fail. The rule protects recovery when the injured party contacts multiple potential sources and receives only conditional or inadequate offers that would require abandoning core aspects of the original bargain.
What conduct triggers preclusion of a forgery claim under the UCC?+
A person is barred from asserting a forgery when failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to the making of the forged signature. The bar applies against a bank that paid the instrument in good faith, and the burden of proving the failure of care rests on the party asserting the preclusion.
Does a prior judgment against one joint tortfeasor automatically bar a later suit against others?+
No. The effect of the prior judgment is governed by ordinary claim-preclusion principles rather than joint-tortfeasor status. The later suit is barred only if the elements of claim preclusion are satisfied between the same plaintiff and the new defendants.
514 U.S. 549 (1995)Constitutional Law
…state power is entrusted in its entirety to the political process. Madison's observation that "the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due," The Federalist No. 46, p. 295 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961), can be interpreted to say that the essence of…