Also known as: collateral estoppel · issue preclusion · collateral estoppel doctrine · issue preclusion doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A preclusion doctrine that bars relitigation of an issue of ultimate fact or law actually litigated and necessarily decided by a valid and final judgment.
Charles Cunningham was acquitted of robbing one poker player after the jury necessarily found he was not present at the scene. The state then charged him with robbing a second player from the same incident. The acquittal precludes the second prosecution because the identity issue was resolved in his favor.
Caleb Chang was acquitted of arson at a warehouse after the jury decided he was not the person who set the fire. Prosecutors later charged him with arson at an adjacent building on the same night using the same eyewitness. The prior acquittal on identity bars the second trial even though new evidence later surfaced.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The Federal Securities Commission obtained a judgment that IronGate Bank knowingly withheld risk information from bond buyers. Pension funds later sued the bank for fraud on the same offering and moved to bar relitigation of the knowing-misrepresentation issue. The court grants the motion because applying preclusion is fair under the circumstances.
Harbor Consortium financed and directed an individual carrier's challenge to a port fee schedule. After the carrier lost, the consortium brought its own refund action asserting the same methodology was invalid. The prior determination binds the consortium because it exercised practical control over the earlier litigation.
Connor Clark was charged with multiple counts arising from one scheme. He successfully moved to sever the counts for separate trials. After acquittal on the first severed count, he argues the remaining counts are barred. The motion fails because his own severance request prevents issue preclusion from attaching across the trials.
Crystal Dynamics was sued for patent infringement and lost after litigating validity. A different plaintiff later sued University of Illinois Foundation on the same patent. The foundation invokes the earlier invalidity finding defensively. The court permits the use because the prior adjudication was full and fair.
Collateral estoppel embodied in the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial when an ultimate fact such as identity was necessarily decided in the defendant's favor by a valid final judgment.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts permit a new plaintiff to rely on an issue decided against the defendant only when applying preclusion is fair under all the circumstances, including the defendant's incentive to litigate and the absence of procedural disadvantages.
Supporting sources
A nonparty that assumes control over litigation in which it has a direct financial interest is bound by the resulting judgment on issues actually and necessarily decided.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a defendant elects separate trials on charges that could have been joined, the first acquittal does not bar the remaining counts through issue preclusion.
Supporting sources
…the extensive involvement from the inception of this litigation by the Department of State and AID.[^maj-19] Under principles of collateral estoppel, these agencies are precluded from subsequently relitigating the issues decided in this suit. "[O]ne who prosecutes or defends a suit in the name of another to establish and protect his…