Also known as: sententia facit jus · res judicata pro veritate accipitur · res judicata
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle under which a final court judgment conclusively determines the rights of the parties with respect to the claims or issues litigated. The judgment is accepted as establishing the truth of the matters decided and bars relitigation under ordinary rules of claim and issue preclusion.
Maria sued a law firm for mishandling her personal injury settlement and lost after a full trial on the merits. She then sued Chen, the solo attorney who jointly represented her in the same matter. The court applies ordinary preclusion rules to decide whether the prior defense judgment bars or limits the new action against Chen.
Scott sued for freedom in state court and received a final adverse judgment on his status. He later brought a new federal action asserting the same claim. The court treats the earlier judgment as conclusive on the issue of his status and dismisses the second suit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A school employee received a final administrative ruling that his termination complied with due process. He later filed a federal suit claiming the same procedural violations. The court holds that the prior ruling precludes relitigation of the procedural adequacy issue.
A party lost a contract dispute before a judge whose recusal motion had been denied. In a later proceeding the party again raised the same bias claim. The court treats the prior denial as conclusive and refuses to reopen the issue.
Investors obtained a final federal judgment dismissing their securities claims. Congress later enacted a statute purporting to revive the same claims. The court holds that the new statute cannot disturb the prior final judgment.
A defendant lost a suppression motion in state court and was convicted. He later sought federal habeas relief on the identical search issue. The court applies preclusion principles and declines to revisit the Fourth Amendment ruling.
No. The effect of a judgment for or against one of several tortfeasors is determined by ordinary principles of res judicata rather than any special tort rule. A plaintiff who loses against one defendant may still pursue others unless the elements of claim or issue preclusion are independently satisfied.
Supporting sources
The prior judgment has preclusive effect only if the usual elements of claim preclusion or issue preclusion are met, such as identity or privity of parties, a final judgment on the merits, and identity of the claim or issue. Joint or concurrent tortfeasors are not treated as sharing a single indivisible claim that disappears after one suit.
Supporting sources
No. A judgment entered by a court lacking personal jurisdiction over a party does not carry res judicata effect against that party. A later court may therefore entertain a separate proceeding to resolve issues, such as property division, that the first court could not reach.
Supporting sources
…does not deny or limit litigants' rights to a federal forum "because state administrative agency determinations do not create res judicata or collateral estoppel effects. The exhaustion of state administrative remedies postpones rather than precludes the assertion of federal jurisdiction." Comment, Exhaustion of State…