Res judicata
Encyclopedia
Res judicata or res iudicata (RJ), also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin
term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law
and common law
legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal
; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion
".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.
Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit
, subsequent judge
s who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment.
A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same defendant where:
Once a bankruptcy
plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised may be barred by RJ.
The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States
or of any state than according to the rules of law.
For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met:
Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g. as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own agent). In that case RJ would not be available as a defense unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient.
or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action
that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party.
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury
as part of an earlier case.
It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial.
Justice Stewart explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
s process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court
ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal by scire facias
or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
There are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions—usually called collateral attacks—are typically based on procedural
or jurisdiction
al issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of the earlier court to issue that decision. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal
governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognize the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involving due process
, cases that appear to be res judicata may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty
taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
RJ may not apply in cases involving the England reservation
. If a litigant files suit in federal court, and that court stays proceedings to allow a state court to consider the questions of state law, the litigant may inform the state court that he reserves any federal-law issues in the action for federal court. If he makes such a reservation, RJ would not bar him from returning the case to federal court at conclusion of action in state court.
RJ may be avoided if claimant was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court. He could file suit in a federal court to challenge the adequacy of the state's procedures. In that case the federal suit would be against the state and not against the defendant in the first suit.
RJ may not apply if consent (or tacit agreement) is justification for splitting a claim. If plaintiff splits a claim in the course of a suit for special or justifiable reasons for doing so, a judgment in that action may not have the usual consequence of extinguishing the entire claim.
is much narrower in scope than in common law nations.
In order for a second suit to be dismissed on a motion of res judicata in a civilian jurisdiction, the trial must be identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identical parties, (2) identical theories of recovery, and (3) identical demands in both trials. In other words, the issue preclusion or collateral estoppel
found in the common law doctrine of res iudicata is not present in the civilian doctrine. In addition if all else is equal between the two cases, minus the relief sought, there will be no dismissal based on res judicata in a civil law jurisdiction.
While most civilian jurisdictions have slightly broadened the doctrine through multiple exceptions to these three requirements, there is no consensus on which exceptions ought to be allowed.
Note: Louisiana
(USA), a civil law jurisdiction, has in the last twenty years begun to follow the common law doctrine of res judicata.
Statute. "The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: ... c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations".
Similar provisions are also found in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the two said conventions, the application of res judicata is restricted to criminal proceedings only. In the European Convention, reopening of a concluded criminal proceedings is possible if -
(a) it is in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned;
(b) there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or
(c) if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings,
which could affect the outcome of the case.
Latin
Latin is an Italic language originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. It, along with most European languages, is a descendant of the ancient Proto-Indo-European language. Although it is considered a dead language, a number of scholars and members of the Christian clergy speak it fluently, and...
term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different...
and common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion
Collateral estoppel
Collateral estoppel , known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision .....
".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.
Application of res judicata in common law
The principle of res judicata may be used either by a judge or a defendant.Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit
Lawsuit
A lawsuit or "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint...
, subsequent judge
Judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open...
s who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment.
A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same defendant where:
- the claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action;
- the plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than what was obtained in the first action;
- the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.
Once a bankruptcy
Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy is a legal status of an insolvent person or an organisation, that is, one that cannot repay the debts owed to creditors. In most jurisdictions bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the debtor....
plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised may be barred by RJ.
The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which...
provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States
United States federal courts
The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...
or of any state than according to the rules of law.
For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met:
- identity in the thing at suit;
- identity of the cause at suit;
- identity of the parties to the action;
- identity in the designation of the parties involved;
- whether the judgment was final;
- whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g. as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own agent). In that case RJ would not be available as a defense unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient.
Scope
Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppelCollateral estoppel
Collateral estoppel , known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision .....
or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action
Cause of action
In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit...
that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party.
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
as part of an earlier case.
It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial.
Rationale
Res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to assure an efficient judicial system.Justice Stewart explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
- Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under RJ, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on a judication.
Exceptions to application
Res judicata does not restrict the appealAppeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
s process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court
Appellate court
An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals or appeal court , is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal...
ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal by scire facias
Scire facias
In English law, a writ of scire facias was a writ founded upon some judicial record directing the sheriff to make the record known to a specified party, and requiring that defendant to show cause why the party bringing the writ should not be able to cite that record in his own interest, or why,...
or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
There are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even outside of appeals. These exceptions—usually called collateral attacks—are typically based on procedural
Civil procedure
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits...
or jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility...
al issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of the earlier court to issue that decision. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal
Federation
A federation , also known as a federal state, is a type of sovereign state characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central government...
governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognize the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involving due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, cases that appear to be res judicata may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty
Liberty
Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions...
taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
RJ may not apply in cases involving the England reservation
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that refined the procedures for U.S. federal courts to abstain from deciding issues of state law, pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496...
. If a litigant files suit in federal court, and that court stays proceedings to allow a state court to consider the questions of state law, the litigant may inform the state court that he reserves any federal-law issues in the action for federal court. If he makes such a reservation, RJ would not bar him from returning the case to federal court at conclusion of action in state court.
RJ may be avoided if claimant was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court. He could file suit in a federal court to challenge the adequacy of the state's procedures. In that case the federal suit would be against the state and not against the defendant in the first suit.
RJ may not apply if consent (or tacit agreement) is justification for splitting a claim. If plaintiff splits a claim in the course of a suit for special or justifiable reasons for doing so, a judgment in that action may not have the usual consequence of extinguishing the entire claim.
Failure to apply
When a subsequent court fails to apply res judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if a third court is faced with the same case, it will likely apply a "last in time" rule, giving effect only to the later judgment, even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge's attention, and the judge must decide how broadly to apply it, or whether to recognize it in the first place. See Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc., 754 F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (9th Cir. 1985).Civil law
The doctrine of res judicata in nations that have a civil law legal systemCivil law (legal system)
Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different...
is much narrower in scope than in common law nations.
In order for a second suit to be dismissed on a motion of res judicata in a civilian jurisdiction, the trial must be identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identical parties, (2) identical theories of recovery, and (3) identical demands in both trials. In other words, the issue preclusion or collateral estoppel
Collateral estoppel
Collateral estoppel , known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision .....
found in the common law doctrine of res iudicata is not present in the civilian doctrine. In addition if all else is equal between the two cases, minus the relief sought, there will be no dismissal based on res judicata in a civil law jurisdiction.
While most civilian jurisdictions have slightly broadened the doctrine through multiple exceptions to these three requirements, there is no consensus on which exceptions ought to be allowed.
Note: Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana is a state located in the southern region of the United States of America. Its capital is Baton Rouge and largest city is New Orleans. Louisiana is the only state in the U.S. with political subdivisions termed parishes, which are local governments equivalent to counties...
(USA), a civil law jurisdiction, has in the last twenty years begun to follow the common law doctrine of res judicata.
International law
Arguably, res judicata is a general principle of international law under Article 38 (1)(c) of the International Court of JusticeInternational Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands...
Statute. "The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: ... c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations".
Similar provisions are also found in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the two said conventions, the application of res judicata is restricted to criminal proceedings only. In the European Convention, reopening of a concluded criminal proceedings is possible if -
(a) it is in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned;
(b) there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or
(c) if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings,
which could affect the outcome of the case.