377:, began a movement away from the application of mutuality in collateral estoppel. Bernhard claimed that certain assets held by the executor Cook of a decedent's estate were part of that estate, while the executor claimed they had been gifted to him by the decedent. In a previous court action it was decided that the assets were gifts to the executor and not assets in escrow, upon which Bernhard sued the bank that had been holding the assets and that had disbursed them to the executor, alleging again that the assets were property of the estate and should have been handled as estate matter. The bank successfully used CE as defense, arguing that Bernhard had already adjudicated the right to those funds and had lost. The court concluded that it was proper for a new party to take advantage of findings in a previous suit to bar action by a party of that suit. Since Bernhard had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in her first suit, the court did not allow her to retry the same issue by merely switching defendants. The precedent of
507:(literally - that which has been decided) can be used as the term for both concepts, or purely as a synonym for claim preclusion. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, on the other hand, the second action is upon a different cause of action and the judgment in the prior suit precludes relitigation of issues litigated and necessary to the outcome of the first action.
179:
345:
relitigating the issue in a trial for much greater damages. As another example, suppose that a defendant did effectively litigate an issue to a favorable conclusion in nine cases, but to an unfavorable result in a tenth case. In this situation, note that the defendant did not have the opportunity to use the nine judgments in its favor as collateral estoppel against subsequent plaintiffs, because that would violate their right to a day in court. As suggested by the
77:
36:
308:
Valid final judgments must be issued by courts with appropriate personal and subject matter jurisdiction. It is notable, however, that an error does not make a decision invalid. Reversible errors must be appealed. The legal defense (CE) applies even if an erroneous judgment, or erroneous use of legal
465:
Collateral estoppel may be avoided as a defense if the claimant did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court, which means he may file suit in federal court to challenge the adequacy of state procedures. Note that in this case the plaintiff's suit would be
344:
Due process concerns also can arise even when a party did have a day in court to dispute an issue. For example, a defendant may have not effectively litigated an issue decided against the defendant in an earlier suit because the damages were too small, so it may be unjust to bar the defendant from
384:
In the absence of mutuality, courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel in an offensive setting than in a defensive one. In other words, courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel to a defendant from a previous action if the defendant is sued by a new plaintiff for the same
489:. The offensive use encourages potential plaintiffs to sit and "test the waters" to see the strength of the defendant's case. If the defendant's case is weak, there is great incentive for new parties to sue and claim that the defendant is estopped based on the prior adverse ruling.
477:
Collateral estoppel is an efficiency rule that is meant to save judicial resources by avoiding the relitigation of issues of fact that have already been litigated. The rule is also intended to protect defendants from the inequity of having to defend the same issue repeatedly.
340:
to a party that litigated it. In other words, every disputant is entitled to a day in court and cannot ordinarily be bound by the negative result of another disputant's suit, even if that other disputant had exactly the same legal and factual arguments.
335:
problems, particularly when it is applied to a party that did not participate in the original suit. Due process mandates that collateral estoppel not be applied to a party that has not litigated the issue in dispute, unless that party is in legal
361:
Historically, collateral estoppel applied only where there was mutuality of parties, meaning that both the party seeking to employ collateral estoppel and the party against whom collateral estoppel is sought were parties to the prior action.
322:
of a decision, or a party from asking the judge for re-argument or a revised decision. In federal court, judgments on appeal are given preclusive effect. However, if the decision is vacated, the preclusive effect of the judgment fails.
272:
doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different
297:. Preclusion requires that the issue decided was decided as part of a valid final judgment. In the United States, valid final judgments of state courts are given preclusive effect in other state and federal courts under the
513:
may be used as a defense in a second suit which involves the same claim as a prior suit, and is conclusive on all matters which were litigated as well as all matters which could have been litigated in the prior suit. In
437:
315:(and by extension, of CE). A judgment need not be correct to preclude further litigation; it is sufficient that it be final, and that it have been decided on the merits of the case.
424:
Used against the defendant from the first suit by the plaintiff (from the first suit) in a subsequent suit thereby preventing relitigation on an issue already decided
350:
309:
principles, occurred in the first action. An incorrect conclusion of the court in the first suit does not cause defendant to forsake the protection of
469:
In the U.S., the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel does not extend to the U.S. government; it is limited to private litigants.
189:
432:
Used by a new plaintiff in a subsequent suit who wants to assert a final judgment on an issue(s) against the defendant from the first suit
416:
Used by a new defendant in a subsequent suit who wants to assert a final judgment on an issue(s) against the plaintiff from the first suit
381:
holds that collateral estoppel may be used as defense against any party who has fully and fairly litigated an issue in a previous action.
277:
involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of
752:
353:, to allow a subsequent plaintiff to use the tenth, negative judgment as collateral estoppel against the defendant may seem unjust.
365:
Most courts in the United States have now abandoned mutuality as a requirement for collateral estoppel in most circumstances. The
141:
518:
the judgment is conclusive only regarding the issues which were litigated. In order for CE to apply, four factors must be met:
113:
457:
Are there any procedural opportunities available to defendant in the second suit that were not available in the first suit?
120:
94:
49:
910:
497:
Collateral estoppel is closely related to the concept of claim preclusion, which prevents parties relitigating the same
346:
721:
241:
223:
160:
127:
63:
289:
Parties may be estopped from litigating determinations on issues made in prior actions. The determination may be an
109:
98:
553:
298:
564:
17:
865:
836:
900:
807:
782:
691:
659:
618:
589:
366:
205:
201:
55:
134:
87:
753:"Promoting Finality: Using Offensive, Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel in Employment Arbitration"
393:
Collateral estoppel may be used either defensively or offensively; mutually or non-mutually:
197:
8:
445:
332:
905:
302:
486:
374:
278:
404:
from the first suit regarding issue(s) that were previously litigated against the
722:"Reducing the Unfair Effects of Nonmutual Issue Preclusion Through Damage Limits"
568:
559:
536:
498:
274:
894:
548:
290:
503:
481:
But note that the use of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel may work
311:
294:
441:, to determine validity of the offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel:
466:
against the state, not against the other party from the prior lawsuit.
266:
405:
401:
76:
269:
27:
Doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue in court
337:
522:
The issues in the second suit are the same as in the first suit
319:
592:
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San
Francisco, Cal.
571:
to limit prosecution for crimes committed at the same time.
531:
The issues must have been necessary to the court's judgment
451:
Did defendant have incentive to litigate the first action?
444:
Could the party trying to assert collateral estoppel have
547:
Although issue preclusion emerged from civil law, in the
646:
Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure, § 4433).
623:, 452 US 394, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1981)"
812:, 464 US 154, 104 S. Ct. 568, 78 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1984)"
870:, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)"
664:, 439 US 322, 99 S. Ct. 645, 58 L. Ed. 2d 552 (1979)"
525:
The issues in the first suit must have been litigated
528:
The issues in the first suit must have been decided
101:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
454:Are there multiple, prior inconsistent judgments?
892:
841:, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916)"
331:Collateral estoppel cases raise constitutional
501:after it has been decided by a judge or jury.
551:it has applied to federal criminal law since
186:The examples and perspective in this article
757:University of California, Irvine Law Review
621:Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie
435:U.S. Courts employ "Fairness Factors" from
64:Learn how and when to remove these messages
783:"Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)"
686:
684:
654:
652:
429:Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel
413:Defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel
242:Learn how and when to remove this message
224:Learn how and when to remove this message
161:Learn how and when to remove this message
318:Collateral estoppel does not prevent an
681:
649:
326:
14:
893:
750:
720:Nonkes, Steven P. (6 September 2009).
719:
279:overuse or abuse of judicial resources
421:Offensive mutual collateral estoppel
397:Defensive mutual collateral estoppel
172:
99:adding citations to reliable sources
70:
29:
696:19 Cal.2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 (1942)"
492:
438:Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore
24:
351:Parklane Hosiery Co, Inc. v. Shore
261:), known in modern terminology as
25:
922:
45:This article has multiple issues.
177:
75:
34:
858:
829:
542:
86:needs additional citations for
53:or discuss these issues on the
800:
775:
744:
713:
640:
611:
581:
13:
1:
662:Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
574:
839:United States v. Oppenheimer
554:United States v. Oppenheimer
472:
356:
299:Full Faith and Credit Clause
7:
694:Bernhard v. Bank of America
565:United States Supreme Court
388:
371:Bernhard v. Bank of America
200:, discuss the issue on the
10:
927:
911:American legal terminology
810:United States v. Mendoza
367:California Supreme Court
284:
594:, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)"
373:, authored by justice
110:"Collateral estoppel"
751:Conley, Ann (2015).
557:in 1916. In 1970 in
448:in the earlier suit?
327:Due process concerns
206:create a new article
198:improve this article
188:may not represent a
95:improve this article
516:collateral estoppel
408:from the first suit
255:Collateral estoppel
726:Cornell Law Review
347:U.S. Supreme Court
400:Used against the
303:U.S. Constitution
252:
251:
244:
234:
233:
226:
208:, as appropriate.
171:
170:
163:
145:
68:
16:(Redirected from
918:
885:
884:
882:
880:
862:
856:
855:
853:
851:
833:
827:
826:
824:
822:
804:
798:
797:
795:
793:
779:
773:
772:
770:
768:
748:
742:
741:
739:
737:
717:
711:
710:
708:
706:
688:
679:
678:
676:
674:
656:
647:
644:
638:
637:
635:
633:
615:
609:
608:
606:
604:
585:
493:Related concepts
487:judicial economy
375:Roger J. Traynor
263:issue preclusion
247:
240:
229:
222:
218:
215:
209:
181:
180:
173:
166:
159:
155:
152:
146:
144:
103:
79:
71:
60:
38:
37:
30:
21:
926:
925:
921:
920:
919:
917:
916:
915:
901:Civil procedure
891:
890:
889:
888:
878:
876:
868:Ashe v. Swenson
864:
863:
859:
849:
847:
835:
834:
830:
820:
818:
806:
805:
801:
791:
789:
781:
780:
776:
766:
764:
749:
745:
735:
733:
718:
714:
704:
702:
690:
689:
682:
672:
670:
658:
657:
650:
645:
641:
631:
629:
617:
616:
612:
602:
600:
588:
586:
582:
577:
569:double jeopardy
560:Ashe v. Swenson
545:
537:direct estoppel
499:cause of action
495:
475:
391:
359:
329:
287:
275:cause of action
248:
237:
236:
235:
230:
219:
213:
210:
195:
182:
178:
167:
156:
150:
147:
104:
102:
92:
80:
39:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
924:
914:
913:
908:
903:
887:
886:
874:Google Scholar
857:
845:Google Scholar
828:
816:Google Scholar
799:
787:Google Scholar
774:
743:
712:
700:Google Scholar
680:
668:Google Scholar
648:
639:
627:Google Scholar
610:
598:Google Scholar
579:
578:
576:
573:
567:applied it to
544:
541:
533:
532:
529:
526:
523:
494:
491:
474:
471:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
455:
452:
449:
433:
427:
426:
425:
419:
418:
417:
411:
410:
409:
390:
387:
358:
355:
328:
325:
286:
283:
250:
249:
232:
231:
192:of the subject
190:worldwide view
185:
183:
176:
169:
168:
83:
81:
74:
69:
43:
42:
40:
33:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
923:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
898:
896:
875:
871:
869:
861:
846:
842:
840:
832:
817:
813:
811:
803:
788:
784:
778:
762:
758:
754:
747:
731:
727:
723:
716:
701:
697:
695:
687:
685:
669:
665:
663:
655:
653:
643:
628:
624:
622:
614:
599:
595:
593:
584:
580:
572:
570:
566:
562:
561:
556:
555:
550:
549:United States
540:
538:
530:
527:
524:
521:
520:
519:
517:
512:
508:
506:
505:
500:
490:
488:
484:
479:
470:
467:
456:
453:
450:
447:
443:
442:
440:
439:
434:
431:
430:
428:
423:
422:
420:
415:
414:
412:
407:
403:
399:
398:
396:
395:
394:
386:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
354:
352:
348:
342:
339:
334:
324:
321:
316:
314:
313:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:issue of fact
282:
280:
276:
271:
268:
264:
260:
256:
246:
243:
228:
225:
217:
214:December 2010
207:
203:
199:
193:
191:
184:
175:
174:
165:
162:
154:
151:February 2021
143:
140:
136:
133:
129:
126:
122:
119:
115:
112: –
111:
107:
106:Find sources:
100:
96:
90:
89:
84:This article
82:
78:
73:
72:
67:
65:
58:
57:
52:
51:
46:
41:
32:
31:
19:
877:. Retrieved
873:
867:
860:
848:. Retrieved
844:
838:
831:
819:. Retrieved
815:
809:
802:
790:. Retrieved
786:
777:
765:. Retrieved
760:
756:
746:
734:. Retrieved
729:
725:
715:
703:. Retrieved
699:
693:
671:. Retrieved
667:
661:
642:
630:. Retrieved
626:
620:
613:
601:. Retrieved
597:
591:
587:See fn. 16,
583:
558:
552:
546:
543:Criminal law
534:
515:
511:Res judicata
510:
509:
504:Res judicata
502:
496:
485:the goal of
482:
480:
476:
468:
464:
436:
392:
383:
378:
370:
364:
360:
343:
330:
317:
312:res judicata
310:
307:
295:issue of law
288:
262:
258:
254:
253:
238:
220:
211:
187:
157:
148:
138:
131:
124:
117:
105:
93:Please help
88:verification
85:
61:
54:
48:
47:Please help
44:
879:12 December
850:12 December
821:12 December
767:12 December
736:12 December
705:12 December
673:12 December
632:12 December
603:12 December
333:due process
895:Categories
575:References
446:intervened
267:common law
121:newspapers
50:improve it
18:Preclusion
535:See also
473:Rationale
406:defendant
402:plaintiff
357:Mutuality
202:talk page
56:talk page
906:Estoppel
389:Strategy
379:Bernhard
369:case of
270:estoppel
196:You may
483:against
385:issue.
338:privity
301:of the
265:, is a
135:scholar
563:, the
320:appeal
293:or an
137:
130:
123:
116:
108:
792:1 May
763:: 656
285:Issue
204:, or
142:JSTOR
128:books
881:2017
852:2017
823:2017
794:2017
769:2017
738:2017
707:2017
675:2017
634:2017
605:2017
114:news
732:(6)
349:in
97:by
897::
872:.
843:.
814:.
785:.
759:.
755:.
730:94
728:.
724:.
698:.
683:^
666:.
651:^
625:.
596:.
539:.
305:.
281:.
259:CE
59:.
883:.
866:"
854:.
837:"
825:.
808:"
796:.
771:.
761:5
740:.
709:.
692:"
677:.
660:"
636:.
619:"
607:.
590:"
257:(
245:)
239:(
227:)
221:(
216:)
212:(
194:.
164:)
158:(
153:)
149:(
139:·
132:·
125:·
118:·
91:.
66:)
62:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
