www.top-law-schools.com Forum

[Borhas]

My brain is frazzled... can someone please explain the difference between Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel (mutual, offensive, defensive)

[Stanford4Me]

I think the courts over complicated the issue with all of their intellectual puffery (but of course, I'm just a lowly 1L).

In plain terms, Res Judicata (Claim preclusion) precludes a plaintiff from re-litigating issues of fact or law, even if the second claim is based on a new theory of law/cause of action. It also bars plaintiffs from raising issues arising out of the same transaction/occurs of a previously settled judgment. (Matthews v. NY Racing - Res Judicata rests on whether or not the subsequent claim is brought based on the same facts surrounding the occurence which operate to make the original claim).

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion) is a little more straight forward and can be boiled down to an "already litigated" test. Issue preclusion requires that the previous judgment be valid, final and on the merits. Issue preclusion can also apply to findings of fact which were necessary for the judgment of a previous case.

Hopefully that's clear . . .

[Mroberts3]

Studying for civ pro, so this feels like im not wasting time!

I always think of it this way:

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

If you sue me for a broken leg in a car crash and win, you can't later sue me for a broken arm arising from the same accident.

Issue preclusion (estoppel) cuts out an issue decided in one case and inserts it into a new one. It requires same law, same facts, the issue was litigated fully and necessary for the judgment, and the party that the preclusion is working against must have been in the first suit.

For example, A sues B for patent infringement and B argues A's patent is invalid. If a jury finds or A, B can never argue that A's patent is invalid in a future suit (either against A or anyone else). If A sues for patent infringement arising from a new transaction or occurrence, B will need some other defense b/c the invalid patent defense will fail automatically.

[Stanford4Me]

Studying for civ pro, so this feels like im not wasting time!

I always think of it this way:

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

If you sue me for a broken leg in a car crash and win, you can't later sue me for a broken arm arising from the same accident.

Issue preclusion (estoppel) cuts out an issue decided in one case and inserts it into a new one. It requires same law, same facts, the issue was litigated fully and necessary for the judgment, and the party that the preclusion is working against must have been in the first suit.

For example, A sues B for patent infringement and B argues A's patent is invalid. If a jury finds or A, B can never argue that A's patent is invalid in a future suit (either against A or anyone else). If A sues for patent infringement arising from a new transaction or occurrence, B will need some other defense b/c the invalid patent defense will fail automatically.

Your explanation was so much better than mine. Good thing I have 9 days until my civ pro final.

[TheFriendlyBarber]

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

Not always. 439 US 322 (1979).

[Borhas]

baller status

thanks fellas

[Borhas]

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

Not always. 439 US 322 (1979).

I thought that case was about offensive collateral estoppel of one particular issue in the case (Shore's fraud)... and the first P was the SEC, but the second P was Parklane Hosiery... so they weren't mutual parties suing over the exact same claim in the second case

[Mroberts3]

Funny, cause i just reread mine and confused myself all over again.

OP: another thing that is hard to explain but super important is that the issue MUST be necessary for final judgment in suit 1. If A sues B and B wins on a special verdict that looks like this:

Duty: Yes, duty to A.
Breach: no breach of duty.
Causation: No but for cause.
Damages: 100 billion dollars

You cannot use issue preclusion against A for either breach or causation because A's claim would fail either way. You don't know which one was really necessary.

[Stanford4Me]

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

Not always. 439 US 322 (1979).

I thought that case was about offensive collateral estoppel of one particular issue in the case (Shore's fraud)... and the first P was the SEC, but the second P was Parklane Hosiery... so they weren't mutual parties suing over the exact same claim in the second case

Yeah, that case deals with collateral estoppel, not res judicata.

[joobacca]

res judicata - you got one shot on a claim
1. same claimants against same defendants (or their successors in interest/privity type of thing)
2. the first case must have ended in a valid final judgment
you cannot "wait and see" (you must appeal) - can't wait to see how a similar claim will turn out in appeal and then argue "no final judgment because i didn't appeal"
you cannot retry your claim in another court
3. both cases (case 1 and the one at issue now) must involve the same claim
i think claims that could have been brought up in case 1 are now barred by RJ -- i think the standard is if the new claim was from the same transaction or occurrence that brought about the original claim
you might also face rule 11 sanctions for not making reasonable inquiry into your claim if you do this
there is an alternative approach. you get a different claim for each right that was violated -- so the same T/O analysis is out, i think. i don't know if anyone actually uses this.

Collateral Estoppel (this is issue preclusion)
Five requirements
1. case 1 ended in valid final judgment
2. same issue was actually litigated and decided in case 1
3. the issue was essential to the judgment in case 1
4. ce can be use against ONLY someone who was a party (privity/successor in interest bs) in the original suit
this requires that party to have had a "full and fair opportunity" (due process concerns?)
there's a thing about "virtual representation" (which is rejected) -- you probably read the exception to this rule. it was about an airplane enthusiasts and his buddy who were part of some club and sued the government or an aircraft carrier to release the blueprints of some old plane through the freedom of information act or something. there are requirements for that as well.
5. there's a split i think on whether offensive CE is kosher.
defensive: movant (of CE) is defendant
offensive: movant is plaintiff
i think the majority says no to offensive CE (not sure). here are some factors that folks who allow offensive CE: guy you're using CE against had full + fair chance in case 1; the guy can foresee multiple suits; the plaintiff using CE could not have joined easily in case 1; there are no inconsistent judgments (let's say issue X has been decided in several jdx. some say guy is a bastard; others say he's legitimate. you don't want plaintiff, because it's unfair, to be able to choose which "case 1" he'll use in his motion)

[los blancos]

Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents a party from raising new claims on a case already decided between those two parties

Not always. 439 US 322 (1979).

I thought that case was about offensive collateral estoppel of one particular issue in the case (Shore's fraud)... and the first P was the SEC, but the second P was Parklane Hosiery... so they weren't mutual parties suing over the exact same claim in the second case

Yeah, that case deals with collateral estoppel, not res judicata.

I think he may just have confused the two since some judges seem to use the term "res judicata" as a blanket for both claim preclusion and collateral estoppel.

[Stanford4Me]

I think he may just have confused the two since some judges seem to use the term "res judicata" as a blanket for both claim preclusion and collateral estoppel.

Which causes me to hate them even more.