Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter[1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of judicial resources. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.
It is similar to the concept of double jeopardy and non bis in idem in criminal law, but the protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offense, however, a different offense may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial, whereas res judicata precludes any causes of action or claims that may arise from the previously litigated subject matter. [2]
Common law
In common law jurisdictions, the principle of res judicata may be asserted either by a judge or a defendant.
Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment.
A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action against the same defendant where:
the claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action;
the plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than was obtained in the first action;
the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.[3]
Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised but was not may be barred by res judicata.[4]
For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met:
identity in the thing at suit;
identity of the cause at suit;
identity of the parties to the action;
identity in the designation of the parties involved;
whether the judgment was final;
whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g. as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own agent). In that case res judicata would not be available as a defence unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient.
Scope
Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties[5] or those in privity with a party.
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case.
It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial.
Res judicata bars matters which were actually decided in an earlier action and also matters which could have been decided.[6]
Rationale
Res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to assure an efficient judicial system. A related purpose is to create "repose" and finality.[7]
Justice Stewart explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties ... from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts have often recognised, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.[8]
Exceptions to application
Res judicata does not restrict the appeals process,[9] which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, but in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal by scire facias or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
There are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions—usually called collateral attacks—are typically based on procedural or jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of the earlier court to issue that decision. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognise the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involving due process, cases that appear to be res judicata may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
Res judicata may not apply in cases involving the England reservation. If a litigant files suit in federal court, and that court stays proceedings to allow a state court to consider the questions of state law, the litigant may inform the state court that he reserves any federal-law issues in the action for federal court. If he makes such a reservation, res judicata would not bar him from returning the case to federal court at conclusion of action in state court.[10]
There is a declaratory judgment exception to res judicata. "[A] declaratory action determines only what it actually decides and does not have a claim preclusive effect on other contentions that might have been advanced."[11] Therefore, "a plaintiff who has lost a declaratory judgment action may also bring a subsequent action for other relief, subject to the constraint of the determinations made in the declaratory action."[11] This exception has been adopted in Oregon,[12] Texas,[13] and a number of other U.S. states.
Res judicata may be avoided if claimant was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court. He could file suit in a federal court to challenge the adequacy of the state's procedures. In that case the federal suit would be against the state and not against the defendant in the first suit.[3]
Res judicata may not apply if consent (or tacit agreement) is justification for splitting a claim. If plaintiff splits a claim in the course of a suit for special or justifiable reasons for doing so, a judgment in that action may not have the usual consequence of extinguishing the entire claim.
However, once a case has been appealed, finality of the appellate court's decision is vindicated in that proceeding by giving effect in later proceedings involving the same matter, whether in the appellate or lower courts. This is the law of the case doctrine.
Failure to apply
When a subsequent court fails to apply res judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if a third court is faced with the same case, it will likely apply a "last in time" rule, giving effect only to the later judgment, even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge's attention, and the judge must decide how broadly to apply it, or whether to recognise it in the first place. [14]
The doctrine of res judicata in nations that have a civil law legal system is much narrower in scope than in common law nations. In civil law countries adopting German law concept, such as Japan and Taiwan, the res judicata (Rechtskraft) is in close connection with the cause of action (Streitgegenstand). However, the theory of cause of action itself is different in Germany and Japan and Taiwan, therefore the scope of res judicata are different in the above countries.
International law
Res judicata applies in international arbitration and other proceedings, specifically Article 59 of the International Court of Justice Statute states "The decision of the Court has no binding force excecpt between the parties and in respect of that particular case", together with Article 60 "The judgment is final without appeal", is a clear statement of the principle of res judicata - that the same parties may not relitigate a case that has already been adjudicated. Additionally, under Article 38 (1)(c) of the same statute it is considered a "general principle of law recognized by civilized nations". The applicability of the principle was confirmed in the Corfu Channel case and the Barcelona Traction Co. Case.[15]
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.
A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel 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[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.
Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.
A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.
In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.
Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest is a law doctrine which holds that a contract cannot adversely affect the rights of one who is not a party to the contract.
Introduction: Issue Preclusion
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Extrinsic fraud is fraud that induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard or is not involved in the actual issues. More broadly, it is defined as:
fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to enforce a contract or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or misleading an ignorant person about the right to sue. Extrinsic fraud is distinguished from intrinsic fraud, which is the fraud that is the subject of a lawsuit.
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1948 in which the Court outlined the scope of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment in determinations of federal tax liability. This was important because a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years. Res judicata, as part of the doctrine of judicial finality, protects a taxpayer's tax liability for a given year once the taxpayer wins a judgment in court. The judgment is controlling not only controlling with regard to the issues litigated but also with any issues that could have been raised if they would have affected the determination of tax liability for the year. However, of course, a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years, and if a judgment fixes liability for one of the years, res judiciary forecloses the reopening of only that year's liability. But the related doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues that were in fact raised and decided in the earlier litigation, even when they arise in a new cause of action, such as a dispute as to liability for a later year.
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983), commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case. By a 6–3 margin, the justices resolved a complicated construction dispute by ruling that a North Carolina hospital had to arbitrate a claim against the Alabama-based company it had hired to build a new wing, even though it meant that it could not consolidate it with ongoing litigation it had brought in state court against the contractor and architect.
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal court's dismissal of a civil action on the ground that it should be heard in a foreign court, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, does not preclude the plaintiff from filing the same action in a state court that applies different forum non conveniens rules.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co[2000] UKHL 65 is a leading UK company law decision of the House of Lords concerning (1) abuse of process relating to litigating issues which have already been determined in prior litigation or by way of settlement, (2) estoppel by convention, and (3) reflective loss of a shareholder with respect to damage which was done to the company in which he holds shares.
Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a final judgment in an infringement suit against a first defendant that a patent is invalid bars the patentee from relitigating the same patent against other defendants. In so ruling, the Supreme Court overruled its 1936 decision in Triplett v. Lowell, which had required mutuality of estoppel to bar such preclusion, and held that the better view was to prevent relitigating if the plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question.
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
↑ In continental jus commune it was different: "When jurists define res judicata, they distinguish it from the final judgment. By final judgment, they mean a decision of the judge that defines and concludes the main subject of the case and that, therefore, necessarily contains words of acquittal or conviction. Yet, the res judicata presents something more, an added value, if compared with the final judgment pronounced by the judge: the judgment passes in rem judicatam following ten days, during which time, making an appeal is permitted. The ten days given to the parties to appeal, are provided for by a principle of ius commune and represent a necessary break between trial and judgment, on the one hand, and the res judicata, on the other. A pause that allows the parties to evaluate the work done by the judge and its results, as well as to identify possible reasons for appealing". Antonella Bettoni, Res judicata and null and void judgment in the Italian and German doctrine of Sixteenth – and Seventeenth – century criminal law. Certain interpretative profiles, Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies, Vol. 12, no. 1, 2008, p. 4.
↑ See Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc., 754 F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (9th Cir. 1985).
↑ "res judicata." Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (2009). Eds. Grant, John P., and J. Craig Barker: Oxford University Press, United Kingdom
External links
Look up res judicata in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
