Introduction: Issue Preclusion
The doctrine of direct estoppel prevents a
party
A party is a gathering of people who have been invited by a host for the purposes of socializing, conversation, recreation, or as part of a festival or other commemoration or celebration of a special occasion. A party will often feature ...
to
litigation
-
A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil actio ...
from relitigating an
issue
Issue or issues may refer to:
Publishing
* ''Issue'' (company), a mobile publishing company
* ''Issue'' (magazine), a monthly Korean comics anthology magazine
* Issue (postal service), a stamp or a series of stamps released to the public
* '' ...
that was decided against that party. Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issues preclusion.
[Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, (1984).] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action.
[INTRODUCTION, 2019A TXCLE-AIP 2 INTRO, 2019 WL 8275463] Issue preclusion means that a party in a previous proceeding cannot litigate an identical issued that was adjudicated and the judgment was an integral part of the overall issue.
Collateral Estoppel
Collateral estoppel is a doctrine that precludes a party from bringing an issue if a determination of law or fact was already made. Collateral estoppel means that in a criminal case, a defendant cannot face the same charge in more than one criminal trial. Collateral estoppel means that in a civil case, means that a party cannot re-litigate an issue decided on the merits in a previous action.
Direct Estoppel
Direct estoppel can arise in two scenarios. First, when a first cause of action is decided on certain grounds and a second cause of action precludes a party from making an argument based on the decided first cause of action. Second, when a court rules on some causes of action, direct estoppel precludes issues that are common to the causes of actions decided and the ones not decided by the court. Restatement (First) of Judgments § 45 explains that direct estoppel occurs when "an issue is actually litigated and determined in an action, the determination is conclusive in any subsequent action between the parties based upon the same cause of action (...)The term “direct estoppel” is used in the Restatement of this Subject to indicate that the binding effect of a judgment as to matters actually litigated and determined in one action applies to a subsequent action between the parties based upon the same cause of action, where the plaintiff is not precluded from maintaining such an action by the extinguishment of his cause of action under the rules as to merger and bar."
Peare v. Griggs, 8 N.Y.2d 44, (1960)
The courts have used direct estoppel to prevent a party from bringing the same cause of action several times. For example, in Peare v. Griggss, the appellate court reversed a judgment awarded by a widow-plaintiff because the direct estoppel doctrine prevented the plaintiff from receiving damages arising out of the same controversy . The court explained that the widow could not litigate a property damage acti