Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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". [1]
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 ...
The doctrine of direct estoppel prevents a party to litigation from relitigating an issue that was decided against that party. [1] Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [3]
Estoppel is a judicial device whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word. The person barred from doing so is said to be "estopped". [1] [2] Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim.
Highlighting that res judicata involves both issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel) which bars repeated litigation of issues that have been settled and were central to the outcome of the case, and claim preclusion (occasionally also called res judicata), barring issues that "could have been raised and decided in a prior action ...
Case history; Prior: Sunnen v. Commissioner, 161 F.2d 171 (8th Cir. 1947): Holding; The general rule of res judicata applies to tax proceedings involving the same claim and the same tax year, while the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is a narrower version of the res judicata rule, applies to tax proceedings involving similar or unlike claims and different tax years.
Claim preclusion and issue preclusion are NOT the same thing. The basic differences are... Issue Preclusion: A sues B and A wins. Then, C wants to sue A. C thinks that A should be prevented (precluded) from using the same defense he used against A because C's suit is so similar. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, a US Supreme Court case, is better ...
According to the Supreme Court, this exception is "designed to implement 'well-recognized concepts' of claim and issue preclusion." [68] The exception was included in the 1948 Act to expressly overrule Toucey v.