Res judicata orres iudicata, also known asclaim preclusion, is theLatin term forjudged matter,[1] and refers to either of two concepts incommon law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject toappeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the sameparties.
In the case ofres judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will useres judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The doctrine ofres judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of judicial resources.Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments.
It is similar to the concept ofdouble jeopardy andnon bis in idem in criminal law, but the protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offense. However, a different offense may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial; whereas,res judicata precludes any causes of action or claims that may arise from the previously litigated subject matter.[2]
Incommon law jurisdictions, the principle ofres judicata may be asserted either by a judge or a defendant.
Once a final judgment has been handed down in alawsuit, subsequentjudges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply theres judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment.
A defendant in a lawsuit may useres 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 against the same defendant where:
For example, once abankruptcy plan is confirmed in a court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised but was not may be barred byres judicata.[4]
TheSeventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in anycourt of the United States or ofany state than according to the rules of law.
Forres judicata to be binding, several factors must be met:
Regardingdesignation 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 caseres judicata would not be available as a defence unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient.
Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also calledcollateral estoppel or issue estoppel), though sometimesres 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 legalcause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties[5] or those inprivity with a party.
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge orjury 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 andvice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applyingres 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.
Res judicata bars matters which were actually decided in an earlier action and also matters whichcould have been decided.[6]
Res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to assure an efficient judicial system. A related purpose is to create "repose" and finality.[7]
US Supreme Court JusticePotter Stewart explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines ofres judicata (claim preclusion) andcollateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Underres judicata, 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 recognised,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 adjudication.[8]
Res judicata does not restrict theappeals process,[9] which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the suit travels up (and back down) theappellate 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 byres judicata, but in states that do not permit renewal by action (as opposed to renewal byscire facias or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
There are limited exceptions tores 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 onprocedural orjurisdictional 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 underfederal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce or recognise the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involvingdue process, cases that appear to beres judicata may be re-litigated. An example would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have hadliberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
Res judicata may not apply in cases involving theEngland 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,res judicata would not bar him from returning the case to federal court at conclusion of action in state court.[10]
There is adeclaratory judgment exception tores judicata. "[A] declaratory action determines only what it actually decides and does not have aclaim preclusive effect on other contentions that might have been advanced."[11] Therefore, "a plaintiff who has lost a declaratory judgment action may also bring a subsequent action for other relief, subject to the constraint of the determinations made in the declaratory action."[11] This exception has been adopted in Oregon,[12] Texas,[13] and a number of other U.S. states.
Res judicata 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.[3]
Res judicata will not apply if consent (or tacit agreement) is justification for splitting a claim.[14] 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.
However, once a case has been appealed, finality of the appellate court's decision is vindicated in that proceeding by giving effect in later proceedings involving the same matter, whether in the appellate or lower courts. This is thelaw of the case doctrine.
When a subsequent court fails to applyres 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 recognise it in the first place.[15]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The doctrine ofres judicata in nations that have acivil law legal system is much narrower in scope than in common law nations. In civil law countries adopting German law concept, such as Japan and Taiwan, theres judicata (Rechtskraft) is in close connection with the cause of action (Streitgegenstand). However, the theory of cause of action itself is different in Germany and Japan and Taiwan, therefore the scope ofres judicata are different in the above countries.
Res judicata applies in internationalarbitration and other proceedings. Article 59 of theInternational Court of Justice Statute states "The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case"; this article, taken together with Article 60, "The judgment is final without appeal", is a clear statement of the principle ofres judicata - that the same parties may not relitigate a case that has already been adjudicated.
Additionally, under Article 38 (1)(c) of the same statute, it is considered a "general principle of law recognized by civilized nations". The applicability of the principle was confirmed in theCorfu Channel case (1947-49) and theBarcelona Traction Co. Case (1970).[16]
