Collateral estoppel

From Free net encyclopedia

Collateral estoppel, also sometimes known as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. This is for the prevention of legal harassment and to prevent the abuse of legal resources.

Contents 1 Issue 2 Strategy 3 Mutuality 4 Rationale 5 Related concepts 6 Criminal law 7 External links

Issue

Simply stated, when an issue of fact (as opposed to an issue of law) is decided by a fair and impartial arbiter (usually a jury), then the two parties may not relitigate that in the future. The line between fact and law, sometimes, can be artificial. In some cases, issues of law can also be precluded (See Restatement (Second) of Judgments sec. 27 (1980)). Other requirements include that the issue decided be actually and necessarily decided as part of a final judgment. A final judgment is one on which appeals as of right have been exhausted, or the time for filing such appeals has passed. Under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment is determined by the law of the jurisdiction issuing the judgment.

Collateral estoppel does not prevent an appeal of the decision to a higher court, or a party from asking the judge for reargument or a revised decision.

Strategy

Collateral estoppel may be used either defensively or offensively:

• Defensive
  • Used against the plaintiff regarding issues that were previously litigated against another defendant.
• Offensive
  • Used by a plaintiff to prevent relitigation by a defendant who lost against another plaintiff on the same issue.

Mutuality

Traditionally, collateral estoppel applied only where there was mutuality of parties, meaning that both the party seeking to employ collateral estoppel and the party against which collateral estoppel is sought were parties to the prior action.

Most courts have now abandoned mutuality as a requirement for collateral estoppel in most circumstances. The modern trend is clearly in favor of abandoning the mutuality requirement.

In the absence of mutuality, courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel in an offensive setting than in a defensive one. In other words, courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel to a defendant from a previous action if the defendant is sued by a new plaintiff for the same issue.

Rationale

Collateral estoppel is an efficiency rule that is meant to save judicial resources by avoiding the relitigation of issues of fact that have already been actually litigated. The rule is also intended to protect defendants from the inequity of having to defend the same issue repeatedly.

Related concepts

Collateral estoppel is closely related to the concept of claim preclusion, which prevents parties relitigating the same cause of action after it has been decided by a judge or jury. Res judicata (literally - that which has been decided) is sometimes used as the term for both concepts, or purely as a synonym for claim preclusion.

Criminal law

Although it emerged out of civil law, in the United States it has applied to federal criminal law since United States v. Oppenheimer in 1916. In 1970 in Ashe v. Swenson, the United States Supreme Court applied it to double jeopardy to limit prosecution for crimes committed at the same time. Codified at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(c).

ja:争点効

External links

• United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916)
• Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970)