Res JudicataLatin for “a matter adjudged.” Doctrine thatprecludes a party from relitigating a finaljudgment on the merits issued by a

competentcourt or administrative tribunal.

The doctrine of res judicata, also called claim preclusion, prevents the same claim from being filed and litigated more than once. Every person is entitled to his or her day in court - not days in court.

In the administrative setting, res judicata applies to refiling of claims and applications.

For example, if a claim for disability benefits is decided by the Social Security Administration, subsequent claims based on the same facts and law are res judicata. A party alleging that an action is res judicata must prove four elements.

First, there must have been a previous proceeding.

Second, the current case and former case must have an identity of parties; that is, the two cases must involve the same parties.

Those in privity to a party satisfy this requirement.

For example, Shirley files a workers’ compensation claim, which is denied. After the decision is made, Shirley dies. Her estate then files a new, but identical, claim. Because the estate is in privity with Shirley, the claim would be res judicata.

Third, the claims of the current and former case must be identical. If a new case involves a claim or issue not raised in the first case, res judicata does not apply.

Note: Res judicata applies not only to claims that actually were raised, but also to those that should have been raised in the prior proceeding.

Fourth, there must have been a final decision on the merits in the previous case.

Dismissals without prejudice do not satisfy this requirement until the time to have them set asidehas passed.

Summary judgment entered prior to final judgment is not final. Default judgments are not res judicata, as they are not on the merits.

Collateral estoppel is similar to res judicata.

Whereas res judicata prevents the relitigation

of claims, collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation

of issues. As with res judicata, a person asserting that

an issue is estopped bears the burden of proving that

collateral estoppel is applicable. The elements of

collateral estoppel are slightly different from the

elements of res judicata, though.

First, there must have been a previous proceeding.

Second, the parties in the current and previous proceedings must be identical. Again, persons in privity with parties satisfy this requirement.

Third, there must be an identity of issues; that is, a person must have been given the opportunity to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding before that issue can be estopped.

Fourth, the issue must have been decided in the prior proceeding and such decision must have been necessary to the prior verdict, finding, or judgment. If a court rules on an issue that is not central to the outcome of the case, the issue may be reheard in a subsequent proceeding.

Equitable Estoppel

Doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a

particular defense or raising a particular issue

because it is unfair to allow the party to do so.

Laches

Common law doctrine that prohibits a party

from raising a right or claim when the party’s

delay in asserting the right or claim has

prejudiced an adverse party.

If a party fails to raise an issue or right until such a time

as an adverse party has been prejudiced, then laches

may be used to estop the first party from asserting the

right or claim.

There are three essential elements to laches.

First, the party against whom laches isclaimed must have been aware of the right or claim that was not raised.

Second, there must have been unreasonable delay in raising the right or claim.

Third, the delay must cause the adverse party to suffer some prejudice.

Cases can be found in several different publications. Each publication may have a different volume number, name of the series and starting page for the same case.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed.2d 147 (1973).

In the above example 410 U.S. 113, refers to the volume

number of the United States Reports and page number

where the reported decision of Roe v. Wade can be found.

93 S. Ct. 705 gives the same information with respect to

West's Supreme Court Reporter and 35 L. Ed. 147, refers

to the volume number and page where the case is reported

in Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer's Edition Second

Series.

Unit Eight Assignment

Your final research project will require you to prepare a 4 – 6

page memorandum of law to your supervising attorney

outlining the issues and law associated with the parents’ and

Martha’s claims. In addition, you will be asked to prepare a

Motion for a Protective Order to prevent enforcement of the

board’s determination pending the outcome of the appeal.

Ensure that the Memorandum is:

(1) 4 – 6 pages in length;

(2) Double-spaced and in a 12-point font;

(3) Well-written and grammatically correct;

(4) Organized in a logical fashion that makes it easy to follow and

understand; and

(5) Cited properly.

Keep moving forward on your work. We are almost done with this term.