Also known as: preclusive defense · preclusion defense · preclusion defenses · claim preclusion · issue preclusion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine or rule that bars a party from relitigating an issue or claim already decided in a prior proceeding. The bar applies when the issue was actually litigated and necessarily decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if new evidence later emerges or the prior proceeding involved different procedural protections.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pablo Perez stood trial for causing an industrial explosion. The jury acquitted him after finding that a supplier's faulty valve alone caused the blast. Prosecutors later discovered logs showing Perez had bypassed an alarm and sought a second prosecution on that basis. The court dismissed the new case because the prior acquittal had necessarily resolved the ultimate issue of Perez's responsibility in his favor.
Prism Analytics was found by the SEC to have violated securities laws in an administrative proceeding. Pearl Porter, a shareholder who was not a party to that proceeding, later sued Prism Analytics for damages arising from the same violations. The court permitted Porter to rely on the SEC finding to establish the violation element because applying issue preclusion offensively was fair under the circumstances.
Pierre Poulin sued Peak Performance in state court for unpaid commissions, but the action was dismissed solely because the statute of limitations had run. Poulin then filed the identical claims in federal court. The federal court allowed the new action to proceed because the prior dismissal was not on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
Prime Logistics financed and directed the legal strategy in an earlier suit brought by one of its carriers challenging a port fee schedule. After that suit produced a judgment upholding the fees, Prime Logistics attempted to relitigate the same methodology in its own refund action. The court held Prime Logistics bound by the prior determination because it had assumed control over litigation in which it held a direct financial interest.
Yes. When a prior jury has necessarily decided an ultimate issue such as causation or identity in the defendant's favor, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the state from relitigating that issue even if new evidence later surfaces and even if prosecutors acted in good faith.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff may do so when the prior proceeding afforded the defendant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and when applying preclusion remains fair to the defendant in light of all circumstances, including the defendant's incentive to litigate vigorously in the first action.
Supporting sources
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) does not itself determine whether a judgment is on the merits for claim preclusion. Jurisdictions may treat a limitations dismissal as not on the merits, allowing the plaintiff to bring the same substantive claims in a subsequent action.
Supporting sources
A nonparty is bound when it assumed control over the prior litigation in which it possessed a direct financial or proprietary interest. Once an issue is actually and necessarily decided by a competent court, that determination is conclusive in later suits involving the controlling party or its privies.
Supporting sources