Preclusion (Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel)
Civil Procedure · Lesson 10
Preclusion (Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel)
這一課問的是：本訴或本爭點是否被「請求排除」或「爭點排除」？
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
Issue · what this lesson is really about
Does claim preclusion or issue preclusion bar this lawsuit (or this issue)?
這一課問的是：本訴或本爭點是否被「請求排除」或「爭點排除」？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
already litigatedprior judgmentsame partiessame claimdecided
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
res judicata
Tap to see meaning
Claim preclusion: bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been litigated.
請求排除。
collateral estoppel
Tap to see meaning
Issue preclusion: bars relitigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to judgment.
爭點排除。
identity of parties
Tap to see meaning
Required for RJ; CE may apply non-mutually.
當事人同一。
actually litigated
Tap to see meaning
Issue actually contested and determined.
實際爭執。
necessary to judgment
Tap to see meaning
Issue's determination was essential to prior judgment.
判決必需。
offensive collateral estoppel
Tap to see meaning
Plaintiff uses prior judgment offensively against defendant.
攻擊性爭點排除。
final judgment
Tap to see meaning
Judgment on the merits.
實體上之終局判決。
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Res judicata (claim preclusion) bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised between the same parties on the same transaction, where a prior final judgment on the merits has been rendered; collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of an issue actually litigated and necessary to a prior judgment.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人party invoking preclusion援用排除之當事人
Act 行為barring relitigation阻止重新爭訟
Object 對象claim or issue請求或爭點
Standard 法律標準RJ + CE prerequisitesRJ + CE 要件
Consequence 後果relitigation barred禁止重新爭訟
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
Holding. Offensive use of collateral estoppel — a plaintiff using a prior judgment against a defendant in a later suit — is permissible in federal court, subject to district court discretion. Mutuality is no longer required, but courts must consider whether the plaintiff could have joined the prior action and whether the prior procedures were fair.
Why it matters. Parklane authorized offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel under federal law, expanding preclusion's reach.
Parklane：聯邦法承認攻擊性非互惠 CE，由法官裁量。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ RJ 與 CE 是同義詞。
✓ RJ = claim preclusion; CE = issue preclusion.
RJ 為請求；CE 為爭點。
✗ settlement = preclusive。
✓ Generally not — no actual litigation.
通常不 — 未實際爭執。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Does the prior judgment in case 1 (D found not negligent) preclude P from relitigating D's negligence in case 2 arising from the same accident?
Rule. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue actually litigated and necessary to a prior judgment between the same parties.
Application (model). In case 1, D's negligence was actually litigated and was necessary to the judgment that D was not negligent. P now seeks to relitigate D's negligence in case 2. Because issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue actually litigated and necessary to a prior judgment between the same parties, the fact that the negligence issue was fully litigated and essential to the prior judgment between the same parties means P is collaterally estopped.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, the negligence issue is precluded in case 2.
MBE Check · multiple choice
P sues D for breach of contract in case 1, wins, and recovers $50,000. Later, P discovers more damages from the same breach and sues D for $200,000 in case 2. May P bring case 2?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: