Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    Claim & Issue Preclusion Chart

    Uploaded by

    Jelani Watson
    Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars a party from relitigating the same claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action where the parties are the same or in privity, and there was a final valid judgment on the merits. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents the relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action, even if a different claim is involved in the subsequent action, as long as the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the first action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Exceptions may apply to avoid unfairness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Claim & Issue Preclusion Chart

    Uploaded by

    Jelani Watson
    222 views1 page
    Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars a party from relitigating the same claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action where the parties are the same or in privity, and there was a final valid judgment on the merits. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents the relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action, even if a different claim is involved in the subsequent action, as long as the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the first action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Exceptions may apply to avoid unfairness.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars a party from relitigating the same claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action where the parties are the same or in privity, and there was a final valid judgment on the merits. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents the relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action, even if a different claim is involved in the subsequent action, as long as the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the first action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Exceptions may apply to avoid unfairness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    222 views1 page

    Claim & Issue Preclusion Chart

    Uploaded by

    Jelani Watson
    Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars a party from relitigating the same claim that was or could have been raised in a prior action where the parties are the same or in privity, and there was a final valid judgment on the merits. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents the relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action, even if a different claim is involved in the subsequent action, as long as the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the first action and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Exceptions may apply to avoid unfairness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Claim Preclusion (res judicata) Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel, including

    non-mutual collateral estoppel)


    The claim is extinguished if the following
    elements are shown: An issue determined (in the first proceeding) is
    determined conclusively with respect to same
    • The claim is between the same parties (or or different claim (e.g. in a subsequent proceeding)
    “privies”1) as in the prior proceeding; if the following elements are shown:
    • The extinguished claim is the part of the “same
    claim” (or cause of action) as the claim that was • The precluded party was a party (or in privity
    determined. In this context, a claim includes all with a party) in first proceeding;3
    rights of the Plaintiff to remedies against the • This issue was actually litigated and
    defendant with respect to all or part of the determined;
    transaction(s). A transaction includes all • The determination was necessary to the out-
    related facts (making a pragmatic come of the first proceeding;
    determination) considering factors such as Note: The party sought to be precluded may argue
    time, motivation, business understandings, and that circumstances fit within an exception (since
    the parties’ expectations. courts have broad discretion to avoid unfair-
    • The claim was extinguished by a valid and final ness.)4
    judgment, i.e., “on the merits”?2

    1 See RS&T at p, 347, Note 4 (Privies are “in privity” which is “a relationship between two parties that
    is ‘sufficiently close” so as to bind them both to an initial determination, at which only one was present.
    2 See RS&T at p, 330, Note 4 (“Merits” is not precisely defined).
    3 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 n.7 (1979) (“It is a violation of due process for a

    judgment to be binding on a litigant who was not a party or a privy and therefore has never had an
    opportunity to be heard.”).
    4 Examples: 1) There was no “adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication

    in the initial action” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 (emphasis added). 2) “The determination
    relied on as preclusive was itself inconsistent with another determination of the same issue.”
    Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 29

    You might also like