Issue Preclusion


Also found in: Wikipedia.

Issue Preclusion

A concept that refers to the fact that a particular Question of Fact or law, one that has already been fully litigated by the parties in an action for which there has been a judgment on the merits, cannot be relitigated in any future action involving the same parties or their privies (persons who would be bound by the judgment rendered for the party).

The term issue preclusion is synonymous with Collateral Estoppel, a doctrine which bars the relitigation of the same issue that was the basis of a finding or verdict in an action by the same parties or their privies in subsequent lawsuits involving the same or different causes of action. It is not, however, the same as the doctrine of Res Judicata which bars the relitigation of an entire Cause of Action, claim or demand, as opposed to an issue that makes up a cause of action, claim, or demand.

Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
He "held the rule of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevented the state from defending the constitutionality of two laws [2011 and 2013] requiring the involvement of a minor's parents before she may obtain an abortion," Johnson reported.
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents relitigation of a prior issue under a new claim if the prior claim was "actually litigated" and if the determination was "essential to the judgment.
The petitioner, which won a previous trademark opposition against the respondent before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), argues that the TTAB's decision on the issue of likelihood of confusion is entitled to issue preclusion effect and that, consequently, the only issues to be decided in its subsequent trademark infringement action against the respondent are (1) whether the respondent ever used the mark shown in its application on the goods recited in its application and (2), if so, the wording of the injunction and the amount of damages to which it is entitled.
101) Also known as issue preclusion, it is commonly stated that collateral estoppel requires more than that "some question of fact or law in a later suit was relevant to a prior adjudication between the parties.
2010) ("The basic difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion is simply put: claim preclusion applies to whole claims, whether litigated or not, whereas issue preclusion applies to particular issues that have been contested and resolved.
Further, the Cirilli plaintiffs had not identified any errors in or addressed why she should revisit her previous decision not to apply claim and issue preclusion.
58) Each time it equated issue preclusion with collateral estoppel and vice versa.
A broad rule of issue preclusion, which establishes an outcome for all purposes in all contexts for all times, may produce litigation to the death over that issue in the initial action.
102) The Eighth and Ninth Circuits' rules are equally clear, stating that "[u]npublished opinions are decisions which a court designates for unpublished status" and that "[t]hey are not precedent," (103) and "[u]npublished dispositions and orders of this Court are not precedent, except when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
two distinct doctrines: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.