res judicata

(redirected from Claim preclusion)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.

res ju·di·ca·ta

 (rēz′ jo͞o′dĭ-kä′tə, rās′)
n. pl. res ju·di·ca·tae (-kä′tē, -tī)
1. The principle that a decision by a competent court in a case fully and fairly litigated is final and conclusive as to the claims and issues of the parties and cannot be relitigated.
2. A claim or issue that has been decided under this principle.

[Latin rēs iūdicāta, thing decided : rēs, thing + iūdicāta, feminine past participle of iūdicāre, to judge.]

res judicata

(ˈreɪs ˌdʒuːdɪˈkɑːtə) or

res adjudicata

(Law) law a matter already adjudicated upon that cannot be raised again

res ju•di•ca•ta

(ˈriz ˌdʒu dɪˈkeɪ tə, ˈreɪs)
a thing adjudicated; a case that has been decided.
[1685–95; < Latin]
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.res judicata - a matter already settled in court; cannot be raised again
matter, topic, issue, subject - some situation or event that is thought about; "he kept drifting off the topic"; "he had been thinking about the subject for several years"; "it is a matter for the police"
References in periodicals archive ?
Mirror Worlds successfully argued that claim preclusion does not bar its infringement claims because the claims are based on acts of infringement that occurred after the trial of the earlier case.
352) Claim preclusion "encompasses the law of merger and bar," under which a litigant is precluded from getting a proverbial second bite at the apple by attempting to litigate a new claim in a second suit that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the first suit.
145) Judge Posner acknowledged its application in McReynolds but resorted to issue certification because, he explained somewhat circularly, that was the way to resolve a common issue before issue or claim preclusion set in.
Claim preclusion prevents a plaintiff from suing the same defendant again for damages arising from the same transaction that was the subject of the earlier suit.
The Cirilli plaintiffs argued that issue and claim preclusion should have bound the arbitrator in this proceeding to the same result that a different arbitrator reached 6 years before in another proceeding.
He said the respondents raise defences based on jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, Res Judicata - claim preclusion - and other procedural moves.
Indeed, there was no need for the Engle III court to distinguish between claim preclusion and issue preclusion--neither phrase appears anywhere in the opinion--because the court stated unequivocally that the Phase I findings would have "res judicata effect," not "collateral estoppel effect," and defined precisely what res judicata meant in this context.
The Court also noted that this more modest approach would allow it to avoid the "arguable violation of the [Rules Enabling] Act that would ensue from interpreting Rule 41(b) as a rule of claim preclusion.
The observations in Subsection B lead to the conclusion that under broad-scope cause of action estoppel fewer claims are submitted to the court, but the cost of every claim is much higher than that of an average claim under a narrow claim preclusion policy, which can have an adverse effect on access to judicial decision-making.
102) The Eighth and Ninth Circuits' rules are equally clear, stating that "[u]npublished opinions are decisions which a court designates for unpublished status" and that "[t]hey are not precedent," (103) and "[u]npublished dispositions and orders of this Court are not precedent, except when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.
Background Legal Principles: Claim Preclusion and Summary