Also known as: res judicata · resjudicata · claim preclusion
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine that prevents relitigation of claims or issues already resolved by a final judgment on the merits between the same parties or their privies. The doctrine promotes finality and judicial economy by treating a valid prior judgment as conclusive on the matters it decided. Jurisdictions differ on whether certain procedural dismissals qualify as judgments on the merits for preclusion purposes.
Diego Duarte sued Danielle Dixon in state court over a contract dispute. The court dismissed the action after the statute of limitations expired. Duarte later filed the same claim in federal court. The federal court must decide whether the state dismissal counts as a judgment on the merits that bars the new suit under claim preclusion principles.
Several patients obtained a final negligence judgment against Valley Compounding Pharmacy for contaminated medication. The patients then sued National Pharmaco Distributors for supplying ingredients to the same batches. The court applies ordinary res judicata rules to determine whether the prior judgment has preclusive effect on the claims against the second supplier.
The SEC obtained a judgment against Parklane Hosiery for securities violations. A private shareholder later sued the same company and sought to use the SEC findings to establish the violations. The court evaluates whether fairness permits the offensive use of the prior judgment to bind the defendant on the litigated issues.
Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc., and eleven of its officers and directors issued a proxy statement in connection with a merger between Parklane and another corporation. Leo Shore, a stockholder of Parklane, filed a class action on behalf of stockholders in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Parklane and the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the proxy statement was false and misleading in violation of sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related SEC rules. The complaint sought damages for the class, rescission of the merger, and recovery of costs. Before Shore’s action came to trial, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate suit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The SEC complaint alleged that the proxy statement that had been issued by Parklane was materially false and misleading in essentially the same respects as those that had been alleged in the respondent's complaint. After a four-day trial, the District Court found that the proxy statement was materially false and misleading in the respects alleged, and entered a declaratory judgment to that effect. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from further violations of the securities laws and ordered them to offer rescission to shareholders who had tendered shares. The defendants did not appeal this judgment. Shore then moved for partial summary judgment in the Eastern District of New York action, asserting that the defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues resolved against them in the SEC action. The District Court denied the motion on the ground that application of collateral estoppel would deny the defendants their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a party who has had issues of fact determined against him after a full and fair opportunity to litigate in a nonjury trial is collaterally estopped from obtaining a subsequent jury trial of these same issues of fact. Because of an intercircuit conflict with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rachal v. Hill, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNorthern Pipeline sued Marathon Pipe Line in bankruptcy court over a contract dispute. Marathon challenged the bankruptcy court's power to enter a final judgment on the state-law claim. The court considers whether the prior proceedings carry preclusive effect given limits on the tribunal's jurisdiction.
In 1978 Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Reform Act after nearly ten years of study. The statute established a United States bankruptcy court in each judicial district as an adjunct to the district court. It granted those courts jurisdiction over all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11. Bankruptcy judges appointed under the Act served fourteen-year terms. They were subject to removal by the judicial council of the circuit for incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty, or disability. They received salaries subject to congressional adjustment. In January 1980 Northern Pipeline Construction Co. filed a petition for reorganization under the Act in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. In March 1980 Northern filed a separate suit in the same court against Marathon Pipe Line Co. seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and warranty as well as for misrepresentation, coercion, and duress. Marathon moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the Act unconstitutionally conferred Article III judicial power on bankruptcy judges who lacked life tenure and salary protection. The United States intervened to defend the statute. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal the District Court reversed and dismissed the suit. Northern and the United States filed notices of appeal, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseShareholders obtained a final judgment dismissing their securities claims under a limitations rule announced in Lampf. Congress later enacted a statute that would revive the dismissed claims. The court determines whether the new statute can reopen the final judgments without violating separation of powers.
In 1987 petitioners filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against respondents. The complaint alleged that respondents had committed fraud and deceit in the sale of stock in 1983 and 1984 in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The District Court dismissed the action as time barred under the then-applicable Kentucky statute of limitations. While petitioners' appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson on June 20, 1991. The next day the Court applied that decision to dismiss another pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit remanded petitioners' case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Lampf. On August 13, 1991, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice under the Lampf statute of limitations. Petitioners filed no appeal, and the judgment became final thirty days later on December 18, 1991. On December 19, 1991, the President signed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. Section 476 of that Act added section 27A to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Subsection (b) provides that any private civil action under section 10(b) commenced on or before June 19, 1991, which was dismissed as time barred after that date and which would have been timely under the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction as such laws existed on June 19, 1991, shall be reinstated on motion by the plaintiff not later than sixty days after December 19, 1991. Petitioners promptly filed a motion under section 27A(b) to reinstate their action. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA Michigan court enjoined a former employee from testifying against General Motors in product-liability cases. The employee later sought to testify in a Missouri proceeding. The Missouri court must decide whether full faith and credit requires it to honor the Michigan injunction as res judicata on the testimony issue.
Ronald Elwell worked as an engineering analyst for General Motors Corporation from 1959 until 1989. For fifteen years he was assigned to the Engineering Analysis Group studying the performance of GM vehicles in product liability litigation, particularly those involving fires. He assisted GM lawyers in defending such suits. Beginning in 1987 the Elwell-GM employment relationship soured. GM and Elwell first negotiated an agreement under which Elwell would retire after serving as a GM consultant for two years. When the time came for Elwell to retire, however, disagreement again surfaced and continued into 1991. A month later Elwell sued GM in a Michigan County Court alleging wrongful discharge and related tort and contract claims. GM counterclaimed that Elwell had breached fiduciary duties by disclosing privileged and confidential information and misappropriating documents. Following a hearing, the Michigan trial court on November 22, 1991, enjoined Elwell from consulting or discussing with or disclosing to any person any of General Motors Corporation's trade secrets, confidential information or matters of attorney-client work product relating in any manner to the subject matter of any products liability litigation whether already filed or to be filed in the future which Ronald Elwell received, had knowledge of, or was entrusted with during his employments with General Motors Corporation. In August 1992 the parties settled for an undisclosed sum. They jointly submitted a stipulated permanent injunction that the Michigan court entered without further hearing. The injunction comprehensively enjoined Elwell from testifying, without the prior written consent of General Motors Corporation, either upon deposition or at trial, as an expert witness, or as a witness of any kind, and from consulting with attorneys or their agents in any litigation already filed, or to be filed in the future, involving General Motors Corporation as an owner, seller, manufacturer and/or designer of the product(s) in issue. The separate settlement agreement stated that court-ordered testimony would in no way form a basis for an action in violation of the Permanent Injunction or this Agreement. In February 1990 Beverly Garner died when the engine of her 1985 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer caught fire after a Missouri highway collision. Her sons Kenneth and Steven Baker filed a wrongful-death product liability suit against GM in Missouri state court in September 1991. They alleged a defective fuel pump caused the post-collision fire. GM removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. GM defended on the merits that the fuel pump was not faulty and that impact injuries alone caused the death. The Bakers sought to depose Elwell and call him at trial. GM objected on the basis of the Michigan injunction. After in camera review of the injunction and settlement agreement the Missouri federal district court permitted Elwell's deposition and trial testimony. The court relied on alternative grounds that Missouri public policy favored disclosure of relevant nonprivileged information and that the injunction was modifiable. At trial Elwell testified in support of the Bakers' fuel-pump defect claim. He identified a 1973 internal GM memorandum concerning fuel-fed engine fire risks. The jury returned an $11.3 million verdict for the Bakers. The district court entered judgment on the verdict. The Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that Elwell's testimony should not have been admitted because the Michigan injunction controlled. Missouri's public policy favoring full faith and credit outweighed any disclosure policy. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the full faith and credit requirement stops the Bakers from obtaining Elwell's testimony in their Missouri action.
View caseNo. The effect of a judgment for or against one of several tortfeasors on claims against others liable for the same harm is governed by ordinary res judicata principles rather than any automatic rule. A prior judgment may have preclusive consequences only if the usual elements of claim or issue preclusion are satisfied.
Supporting sources
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) does not itself decide the question. Jurisdictions may treat a limitations dismissal as on the merits or not, and a later court applies the rendering jurisdiction's rule to determine preclusive effect.
Supporting sources
…does not deny or limit litigants' rights to a federal forum "because state administrative agency determinations do not create res judicata or collateral estoppel effects. The exhaustion of state administrative remedies postpones rather than precludes the assertion of federal jurisdiction." Comment, Exhaustion of State…