Also known as: preclusive effects · preclusion · claim preclusion · issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The binding force of a prior judgment that prevents relitigation of the same claim or issue in a subsequent proceeding.
Pierce Patterson was tried for theft and acquitted when the jury found he was not the person who took the property. The state later obtained new evidence identifying him and brought a second prosecution for the same act. The court dismissed the new case because the prior acquittal necessarily decided the identity issue in Patterson's favor.
Phoenix Technologies lost a securities enforcement action brought by regulators establishing that it had made false statements. A private investor then sued Phoenix for damages arising from the same statements. The investor relied on the prior judgment to establish the falsity element, and the court permitted the use because it was fair under the circumstances.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pablo Perez sued Premier Manufacturing in state court for breach of contract, but the action was dismissed solely because the statute of limitations had expired. Perez later filed the identical claim in federal court. The federal court allowed the suit to proceed because the prior dismissal was not treated as an adjudication on the merits for claim preclusion purposes.
Pinnacle Holdings financed and directed the defense in a contract suit brought against its subsidiary. After the subsidiary lost on the issue of contract validity, Pinnacle later attempted to relitigate the same validity question in its own action against the same plaintiff. The court held Pinnacle bound by the prior determination because it had controlled the earlier litigation.
Patricia Patel sought judicial review of an agency order regulating her company's product labeling. The governing statute contained a provision that channeled certain challenges exclusively through a specific enforcement proceeding. The court dismissed the separate review action because the statutory scheme gave the order preclusive effect on the issues Patel sought to raise.
Parker Phillips was a member of a certified class that obtained a final judgment approving a nationwide settlement releasing all claims against a manufacturer. Phillips later filed an individual action in another state asserting the same released claims. The second court dismissed the action because the class judgment carried preclusive effect that bound absent class members.
Issue preclusion under the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a second prosecution when an ultimate factual issue, such as the identity of the perpetrator, was decided in the defendant's favor in the first trial.
Supporting sources
Yes, a private plaintiff may offensively use a prior judgment against a defendant when the prior judgment established the violation and applying preclusion is fair to the defendant under all the circumstances.
Supporting sources
No, jurisdictions may treat a dismissal based on the running of the statute of limitations as not on the merits, so the claim may be refiled in another court.
Supporting sources
A nonparty is bound when it assumed control over the prior litigation in which it had a direct financial or proprietary interest, making the prior determination conclusive.
Supporting sources
…Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U. S., at 292, can usually be accommodated through choice-of-law rules rather than through outright preclusion of jurisdiction in one forum. See n. 19, supra. [^maj-27]: The only arguable instance of trial inconvenience occurred when Rudzewicz had difficulty in authenticating some corporate…