Talk:Collateral estoppel

Untitled

courts are more hesitant to apply collateral estoppel if the same plaintiff in a previous action is sued by a new defendant for the same issue.

Huh? Shouldn't this read the opposite, applying when a new plaintiff sues the same defendant for the same issue? It makes more sense that a defendant would be sued twice for an issue than that a plaintiff would win on the issue and then get sued by someone else (who would, anyway, then be the plaintiff in the new action). Ari 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that statement's misleading; typically defendants don't sue plaintiffs (except counterclaims, but that's not what's going on here). It'd be clearer to say "claimant" v "respondent".LH 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting a sentence that says that the judgment of a court that lacked subject matter jurisdiction cannot be collaterally attacked. My understanding is that if it is clear that the earlier court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, such collateral attack is allowed. If you believe the law supports the retracted statement, cite a case in the article. --Hlsgrad 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely US-centric. Perhaps the term "collateral estoppel" is a specific US term, but the principle of preclusion is found in other legal systems. At the very least it should be made clear that this applies in the American legal system, rather than simply be implied. --Rhombus (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same principle as is called 'estoppel in rem judicatam' in English law? 148.197.8.238 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Law Students: Mixture of Legal Rules

The first paragraph discussing the Full Faith and Credit Clause concerns claim preclusion -- not issue preclusion. Claim preclusion and issue preclusion are NOT the same thing.

The basic differences are...

Issue Preclusion:

A sues B and A wins. Then, C wants to sue A. C thinks that A should be prevented (precluded) from using the same defense he used against A because C's suit is so similar. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, a US Supreme Court case, is better to use in this article's section on Mutuality. It also discusses several other issue preclusion analysis points. Bernhard v. Bank of America is only a CA Supreme Court case.

Claim Preclusion:

A sues B for breach of contract. A wins. Now, A decided he wants to sue B again for negligence. Should A be precluded (prevented) from bringing this new claim against B? This has many analysis points and some states use different legal tests. The Full Faith and Credit Clause comes into play here. It basically says that states have to respect the laws from other states. So, let's say A's first breach suit is in the State of Dog. A's second suit is filed in the State of Cat. Cat has to follow the rules from Dog.

From one law student to others who check Wikipedia -- Rely on your notes from class! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.91.65 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]