Res Judicata

(redirected from Claim preclusion)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Res Judicata

In law, a case that has already been decided and is no longer subject to appeal. A res judicata case prohibits litigants from bringing up the same matter repeatedly. For example, res judicata disallows creditors from trying to collect a debt after it has been discharged in bankruptcy. The term is Latin for "a thing judged."
References in periodicals archive ?
In general, these limitations include the rules of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, and the concept of "privity".
i) They may he cited to this Court or to or by any other court in this circuit when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
two distinct doctrines: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
the Bon-ton court eventually applied claim preclusion to deny Bouchat
92) Claim preclusion is the modem term for the common law rule against splitting.
For an earlier discussion of the limits of claim preclusion outside the formal requirements of Rule 23, see Samuel Issacharoff, Private Claims, Aggregate Rights, 2008 SUP.
30) Thus, it implicitly assumed that claim preclusion did not bar the absent class members' individual claims, thereby adopting a gloss on the doctrine of claim preclusion for class actions.
Allowing split causes of action is better than the current use of claim preclusion.
326) Moreover, instead of attempting to minimize the res judicata and collateral estoppel risks for the omitted claims, these courts deny certification based merely on a fear that there might be issue or claim preclusion.
155) Surprisingly--given the safe harbor it had offered--the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on claim preclusion grounds, holding that "the California Supreme Court's adjudication of the state takings claims was an 'equivalent determination' of the federal takings claims, and .
While this result may initially appear at odds with traditional claim preclusion principles--the Restatement articulation prohibits more than one lawsuit arising out of the same factual occurrence on the theory that the award in the first action is intended to encompass the entire award for the entire injury--it may be reconciled as a consistent outgrowth or variation on the traditional rule which furthers several important policy goals.
With respect to adequacy concerns based on omitted claims, district courts have discretion to address possible issue and claim preclusion concerns up front, as opposed to denying class certification based on the lack of adequate representation.