Also known as: collaterally estopped · issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine barring a party from relitigating an issue of fact or law that was actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid and final judgment in a prior action.
Caitlin Crowley was acquitted of robbing one victim when the jury necessarily decided she was not the perpetrator. The state later charged her with robbing a second victim from the same incident. The prior acquittal precludes the state from proving she committed the second robbery.
Cade Carpenter was acquitted of assault after the jury found he was not the person who committed the act. Prosecutors later brought charges for a related assault on another victim using the same evidence of identity. The earlier determination prevents relitigation of whether Carpenter was the assailant.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cobalt Energy lost an SEC enforcement action establishing that it issued a materially false proxy statement. A private shareholder then sued for damages arising from the same statement. The shareholder may rely on the prior finding to establish the falsity element.
Cascade Manufacturing financed and directed the defense in a supplier's earlier contract suit that resolved the validity of a disputed pricing formula. Cascade later faces its own suit on the identical formula. The prior determination binds Cascade because it controlled the first litigation.
Connor Clark sued a federal agency over wildlife-protection rules and lost on the ground that he lacked concrete injury. Clark later brings a related challenge to a different but overlapping regulation. The earlier finding that he suffered no injury precludes relitigation of that element.
Christine Castro withheld her proxy in a merger vote after receiving a statement later found misleading in a parallel action. Other shareholders who also withheld proxies then sued the same defendants. The prior ruling on materiality may be used to establish the element against the defendants.
The doctrine bars a second prosecution when an issue of ultimate fact was determined in the defendant's favor by a valid and final judgment in the first case. The determination must have been necessary to the judgment.
Supporting sources
Yes when application is fair to the defendant in light of all circumstances including the defendant's incentive to litigate the first action and the procedural opportunities available.
Supporting sources
A nonparty that assumed control over litigation in which it had a direct financial interest is bound by the resulting determination of issues actually and necessarily decided.
Supporting sources
The issue must have been properly raised, submitted to the court for determination, and decided after a contested proceeding rather than by default.
Supporting sources
…and in litigation to which the other agencies are not parties. As for the contention that the other agencies will be "collaterally estopped" to challenge our judgment that they are bound by the Secretary of the Interior's views, because of their participation in this suit, post , at 596-597: Whether or not that is true now, it…