13:09
had to happen
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
issue preclusion
Read a random definition: in modum simplicis querelae
A quick definition of issue preclusion:
Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, is a legal rule that says if a court has already decided an issue in a case, the same issue cannot be re-litigated in a different case. This rule applies only if the issue was essential to the first case, actually litigated, and the judgment was final and valid. Issue preclusion helps to ensure that the law is consistent and reliable over time. It is different from claim preclusion, which bars the re-litigation of an entire claim, while issue preclusion only bars the re-litigation of specific issues.
A more thorough explanation:
Definition: Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, is a legal principle that states a valid and final judgment binds the plaintiff, defendant, and their privies in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to same issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action.
The four essential elements to decide if issue preclusion applies are:
- The former judgment must be valid and final
- The same issue is being brought
- The issue is essential to the judgment
- The issue was actually litigated
Issue preclusion is an important legal doctrine that aims to preserve the longer-term stability and reliance on the law. It is similar to the doctrine of res judicata, which is also called claim preclusion. However, issue preclusion bars only relitigating of the issues that are actually litigated, while claim preclusion bars the relitigating of all issues of a claim.
For example, if a plaintiff brought claim A in case 1 and claim B in case 2, res judicata would not prohibit the litigation of claim B. But if claim B contains the same issue that has been actually litigated in case 1, issue preclusion can prohibit this issue from being relitigated.
An example of issue preclusion in action is the case of Little v. Blue Goose Motor Coach Co., 346 Ill. 266. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages of medical expenses. The court ruled that the relitigating of the issue of negligence, which was actually litigated in a former case brought by Blue Goose against Little for damages in a car accident, was precluded by issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion can also bind alternative judgments. Different jurisdictions have different opinions regarding alternative judgments. In most U.S. jurisdictions, alternative judgments are preclusive as long as the issues are resolved in the former case. In some jurisdictions, neither judgment is preclusive. And in some other jurisdictions, both judgments can be preclusive, depending on if the former court has carefully considered the issues.
Issue preclusion usually has a doctrine of mutuality, meaning it only binds the parties of the former litigation. However, there are exceptions. In Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), Justice Ginsburg listed the 6 categories of exceptions of the doctrine of mutuality. This expands the reach of issue preclusion even more.