Practice question from Civil Procedure Mastery

Describe the difference between claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), including their elements and effects. When might issue preclusion apply even though claim preclusion does not?

Answer

!AI

Explanation

Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) serve different preclusive functions. Claim preclusion has three elements: (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) the same claim (usually under the transactional test—same transaction or occurrence), and (3) same parties or those in privity. Its effect is to bar relitigation of the entire claim, including all grounds that were raised or could have been raised. Issue preclusion has four elements: (1) the same issue as in the prior case, (2) the issue was actually litigated and determined, (3) the determination was essential to the judgment, and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Its effect is to bar relitigation of only that specific issue. Issue preclusion can apply when claim preclusion does not because: (a) different claims can involve the same issue (e.g., causation issue determined in Case 1 between A and B might preclude relitigation in Case 2 between A and B involving a different claim but the same causation question); (b) non-mutual issue preclusion allows parties who weren't in the first case to invoke preclusion (though courts have discretion in offensive non-mutual situations). Example: Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence arising from a car accident. Court finds Defendant ran a red light. That finding can have issue-preclusive effect in a later case about a different harm from the same accident, even though the claims are different.