Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Collateral Estoppel
These two doctrines establish the rule that once a case has reached a final judgment,
relitigation of the claims and issues generally is barred.
1. There must have been prior litigation in which identical claims were raised
(or could have been raised). In general, claims are sufficiently identical if
they are found to share a “common nucleus of operative fact.”
3. There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the original
litigation. Note: Not all final judgments are based on the merits of the case
(i.e., cases dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, etc.).
3. Scope: Res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were previously litigated as
well as claims that could have been litigated in the first lawsuit.
1. There must have been a prior litigation in which the identical issue was
brought before the court.
2. The issue must have been actually litigated in the first judicial proceeding,
and the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted must have
had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first judicial
proceeding.
3. The issue must necessarily have been decided and rendered as a necessary
part of the court’s final judgment.
3. Scope: Unlike res judicata, collateral estoppel does not bar future litigation over
issues not actually raised in the original judicial proceeding, even if the issues
could have been raised.
4. Who may be bound: The old rule that only the actual parties (and those in privity
with the actual parties) to the first judicial proceeding may be bound by the
court’s findings/decision on the issue has been virtually abolished. Increasingly,
courts have been willing to allow strangers (persons not involved in the first
litigation) to use collateral estoppel in various situations to prevent another party
from relitigating an issue.