musicfor18 wrote: Rudolph wrote:
Rudolph wrote:How are people remembering the distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion? I seem to confuse which doctrine will bar a subsequent action with some regularity.
Bumping this question -- any help appreciated!
Only claim preclusion bars an entire subsequent action (think claim = action). Issue preclusion bars relitigation of specific issues that were litigated and decided in a prior suit.
I hateeeee issue and claim preclusion questions, because they are always tricky and they sometimes will use the alternate phrases for them (that is, Claim preclusion a.k.a. res judicata or issue preclusion a.k.a. collateral estoppel).
One way to determine whether the subsequent CLAIM will be blocked is to look at the parties, it must be the same claimant v. the same defendant for there to be claim preclusion... Issue preclusion does not have to be the same, but it is tricky because the parties must have had the same interests.
Also, check your state's laws regarding issue preclusion if you have civil procedure on the essay day. Here in Tennessee, we still follow the mutuality rule for only offensive issue preclusion, which means that the parties must be from the same case or controversy to use issue preclusion OFFENSIVELY. But, we allow non-mutual defensive issue preclusion. (Whew, thanks for making it easy, Tennessee!)