Chapter 16-7 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

• Jurisdiction: United States

16-7 Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

Res judicata and collateral estoppel seek to prevent the relitigation of issues or claims. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, seeks to prevent the relitigation of claims which were actually brought, or could have been actually brought, in a prior lawsuit. The doctrine of res judicata reflects the fact that, upon the entry of judgment, the plaintiff's causes of action merge into the judgment and any attempt to relitigate the claim is barred.⁵² Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, seeks to prevent the relitigation of issues which have already been decided for or against a party.⁵³ Collateral estoppel can be used as either an offensive sword or a defensive shield.⁵⁴

16-7:1 Elements—Res Judicata

(1) A prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction;⁵⁵

(2) Identity of parties or those in privity with them;⁵⁶ and

(3) A second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action.⁵⁷

16-7:2 Elements—Collateral Estoppel

(1) The facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action;⁵⁸

(2) Those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action;⁵⁹ and

(3) The parties were cast as adversaries in the first action.⁶⁰

16-7:3 Other Substantive Issues

The main thrust of res judicata is the scope of the doctrine. Simply speaking, the doctrine prohibits bringing any claims which were brought or arise out of the same subject matter and could have been brought if the plaintiff had exercised due diligence.⁶¹

Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues which are common to separate causes of action. Therefore, if two or more causes of action have similar discrete issues, collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of the issue after one has been decided.⁶²

A judicial decision applies retroactively to pending cases, even those pending on appeal, but res judicata precludes a collateral attack on a judgment that has become final in order to bring litigation to an end and avoid the possibility of reopening litigation that is the subject of a final judgment because the governing law later changes.⁶³

--------

Notes:

^[52] Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex. 1985).

^[53] Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994).

^[54] See Eagle Props., Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 722 (Tex. 1990).

^[55] Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996).

^[56] Amstadt v. U.S. Brass...