Section 3.13 Elements of Collateral Estoppel

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

C. (§3.13) Elements of Collateral Estoppel

The primary distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel is that the former applies as to matters that might have been raised in the prior suit, whereas the latter applies only as to issues previously litigated. Hollida v. Hollida, 190 S.W.3d 550, 555 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006).

In Missouri, collateral estoppel or estoppel by verdict traditionally required the fulfillment of two criteria:

1. The fact or issue in the subsequent action was actually decided or determined by the judgment in the previous suit.

2. The parties to the latter suit were the same as or in privity with those in the earlier action.

This latter requirement was commonly termed “mutuality of estoppel.” Kansas City v. Graybar Elec. Co., 485 S.W.2d 38, 43 (Mo. banc 1972); Smith v. Preis, 396 S.W.2d 636, 640–41 (Mo. 1965).

But Missouri has eliminated mutuality of parties as a necessary element of collateral estoppel. In Oates v. Safeco Insurance Co. v. America, 583 S.W.2d 713, 719–21 (Mo. banc 1979), the Supreme Court of Missouri indicated that mutuality of estoppel was no longer necessary in deciding whether to apply collateral estoppel. Instead, the Court recognized that “[f]airness is the overriding consideration in determining whether or not to apply the Doctrine of Mutuality.” Id. at 719. Missouri is in the majority of jurisdictions in holding that mutuality is not a requisite of collateral estoppel. See also:

· Hudson v. Carr, 668 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Mo. banc 1984)

· Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis v. City of St. Louis, 879 S.W.2d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 1994)

· Gamble v. Browning, 379 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Mo.

...