Also known as: two bites at the apple · second bite of the apple · double recovery · res judicata
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle that prevents a party from pursuing successive actions or remedies for the same claim or harm. The rule protects against double recovery and inconsistent outcomes by treating a prior judgment or election as conclusive.
Theresa Tucker leased space from Talon Security for her retail store. After the landlord failed to repair the roof as required, Theresa sued for damages including lost inventory. She later sought additional compensation for the same roof failure under a different damage theory. The court barred the second claim because the first judgment already addressed the full loss.
Tyler Taylor was injured when a delivery truck owned by Torchlight Media struck him because of faulty brakes maintained by Threshold Capital. Tyler obtained a judgment against Torchlight Media. He then filed a separate suit against Threshold Capital for the identical injuries. The court dismissed the second action under res judicata principles.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tabitha Taylor sued a coal company in state court and lost. She then filed a federal action claiming the state judge should have recused himself due to campaign contributions from the defendant. The federal court rejected the second suit because the state judgment already resolved the fairness issue.
Theodore Tucker claimed freedom in a Missouri proceeding and lost. He later brought a new federal action asserting the same citizenship rights on identical facts. The court held the prior judgment conclusive and barred the renewed claim.
Trinity Pharmaceuticals obtained a judgment in a state contract action. It then attempted to relitigate the same contract issues in a federal bankruptcy proceeding involving the debtor. The bankruptcy court dismissed the renewed claims as precluded by the earlier judgment.
Tamara Tan lost a Title VII action against her former employer. She filed a second suit under state law alleging the same discriminatory acts. The court dismissed the state claim because the federal judgment already addressed the underlying conduct.
A party may pursue alternative remedies until it obtains inconsistent relief or the opposing party materially relies on the initial choice. In the MetroRise scenario, the buyer could switch from specific performance to rescission because no final judgment had been entered and the seller had not altered its position regarding the parcel.
Supporting sources
Yes. The beneficiary may obtain judgments against either or both parties but is limited to a single satisfaction of the underlying debt. Payment by one reduces the obligation of the other to prevent double recovery.
Supporting sources
The effect is governed by res judicata principles. A judgment for or against one tortfeasor determines the rights of others who were or could have been liable for the identical harm.
Supporting sources
The seller must hold the goods for the buyer and credit any reasonable resale proceeds. Full price recovery does not permit the seller to retain both the money and the goods without adjustment.
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…