Also known as: merger & bar · claim preclusion · res judicata
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine of claim preclusion under which a final judgment on the merits merges the prevailing plaintiff's claim into the judgment or bars a losing plaintiff from relitigating the same claim against the same defendant.
Michael Miller sued Meridian Motors in state court for breach of warranty on a defective vehicle. The court dismissed the action after the statute of limitations expired. Michael later filed the identical claim in federal court. The federal court permitted the new action because the prior dismissal did not count as an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
Michelle Murphy obtained a final judgment against one driver for injuries sustained in a collision. She then sued the second driver and the vehicle manufacturer for the same harm. The second suit proceeded because the prior judgment did not automatically preclude claims against other parties potentially liable for the identical injury.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Maria Morales sued a coal company for damages arising from mining operations. After a final judgment against the company, she attempted to relitigate the same liability theory in a new action. The court barred the second suit under claim preclusion because the claims were identical and involved the same parties or their privies.
Mohan Malhotra obtained a state-court judgment requiring an auto manufacturer to pay damages for a defective product. When he sought enforcement in another jurisdiction, the manufacturer attempted to relitigate the underlying liability. The second court applied claim preclusion and refused to reopen the settled claim.
Melanie Morris sued a hosiery company for securities violations after the SEC had already obtained a final judgment against the same defendants on the identical claim. The court barred her suit under merger and bar because the prior adjudication on the merits precluded relitigation of the same claim between the same parties.
Marcus Mitchell, a member of a certified class, attempted to bring an individual suit raising the same contract claims already resolved by a final judgment in the class action. The court barred the new suit because the prior judgment merged and precluded relitigation of the identical claims by class members.
A dismissal based solely on the running of the statute of limitations does not automatically operate as an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Jurisdictions may treat such dismissals differently, and federal courts applying state law follow the rendering state's rule on whether the dismissal bars a subsequent suit on the same claim.
A judgment against one tortfeasor does not automatically bar or merge claims against other potential tortfeasors. The effect of the prior judgment on claims against additional parties is governed by ordinary res-judicata principles rather than any special tort rule.
Merger and bar preclude a second action on the same claim even as to issues the parties failed to raise in the first proceeding, provided the first judgment was final and on the merits between the same parties. Limits on the first tribunal's jurisdiction or authority may prevent preclusion if they barred assertion of certain theories or relief.
…her children pursued their own interests. When the Florida decree was entered the legatees unsuccessfully urged it as res judicata of the Delaware dispute. In a decree dated Jan. 13, 1956, the Delaware Chancellor ruled that the trust and power of appointment were valid under the applicable Delaware law, and that the…