Contrary to what some non-lawyers might think, res judicata is not the name of the latest trendy disco, nor is it the most recent Latin pop music phenomenon to hit our shores. Instead, it is an important legal doctrine which promotes finality in court cases. (Now who could argue with that?)
Literally, the term means “thing decided” or “thing adjudicated.” Once a matter has been decided, it is not to be re-decided.
In its simplest form, the doctrine prevents a defaulting borrower from re-litigating a cause of action which has been decided finally and where all appeals have been exhausted. If I sue a person to whom I made a loan of $15, and the court awards me only $10 by way of judgment, if I do not appeal that judgment, all I can collect is $10. I cannot file another lawsuit for the remaining $5 which I claim. Similar to the doctrine of res judicata is the doctrine of collateral estoppel. This doctrine allows a third party to hold you to the results of a prior court case if one of the findings in that case is central to the third party’s claim against you. Illustration: If you are involved in an automobile accident and are convicted of reckless driving (a summary offense) you may also be found guilty of negligence in a subsequent civil action brought by an injured passenger in the other car. The doctrine of collateral estoppel may well prevent you from arguing that you were not careless if you have already been adjudged guilty in a criminal proceeding for reckless driving. While the criminal case is between you and the Commonwealth, if you are convicted, the results of that case may come back to haunt you in the later civil action. You are said to be collaterally estopped from denying your negligence.
The common thread between res judicata and collateral estoppel is that both doctrines are designed to prevent multiple litigation of the same claim or issue. In fact, res judicata is often called “claim preclusion,” while collateral estoppel is referred to as “issue preclusion.” In either case, the goal is to litigate a claim or an issue only once and insure that the outcome is binding in subsequent proceedings.
Literally, the term means “thing decided” or “thing adjudicated.” Once a matter has been decided, it is not to be re-decided.
In its simplest form, the doctrine prevents a defaulting borrower from re-litigating a cause of action which has been decided finally and where all appeals have been exhausted. If I sue a person to whom I made a loan of $15, and the court awards me only $10 by way of judgment, if I do not appeal that judgment, all I can collect is $10. I cannot file another lawsuit for the remaining $5 which I claim. Similar to the doctrine of res judicata is the doctrine of collateral estoppel. This doctrine allows a third party to hold you to the results of a prior court case if one of the findings in that case is central to the third party’s claim against you. Illustration: If you are involved in an automobile accident and are convicted of reckless driving (a summary offense) you may also be found guilty of negligence in a subsequent civil action brought by an injured passenger in the other car. The doctrine of collateral estoppel may well prevent you from arguing that you were not careless if you have already been adjudged guilty in a criminal proceeding for reckless driving. While the criminal case is between you and the Commonwealth, if you are convicted, the results of that case may come back to haunt you in the later civil action. You are said to be collaterally estopped from denying your negligence.
The common thread between res judicata and collateral estoppel is that both doctrines are designed to prevent multiple litigation of the same claim or issue. In fact, res judicata is often called “claim preclusion,” while collateral estoppel is referred to as “issue preclusion.” In either case, the goal is to litigate a claim or an issue only once and insure that the outcome is binding in subsequent proceedings.
– Curt Ward