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!
How about this:
Claim preclusion = Res Judicata
Think of it like pre-trial dismissed w/ prejudice. P can't bring it up again. Prevents them from brining it up in another jurisdiction too. Just bring forward. P lost the case in Fed ct, tries to win in State ct.
Issue preclusion = Collateral Estoppel
Even though it's taught under civ pro, think of crim pro. Jury already found D guilty of committing crime X (w/ elements of a, b, and c). V files civil suit for damages. Doesn't have to prove a, b, or c elements in the civil case. That's a 1 to 1.
Think also of the Asbestos cases. The company that made asbestos has long since gone out of business, their successor still has cases come up. P's no longer have to prove asbestos causes cancer. That ISSUE was settled a long time ago by the Company's predecessor in interest. The only part to determine in the current case is whether P was exposed and harm done (does P qualify as a proper P for the trust fund). Prior D to Current P.