res judicata

(redirected from Claim preclusion)
Also found in: Dictionary, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
  • noun

Synonyms for res judicata

a matter already settled in court

References in periodicals archive ?
Claim preclusion generally means the extinguishing of all aspects
This Comment proposes that claim preclusion and stays are the proper procedural tools to achieve these results.
Thus consent judgments ordinarily support claim preclusion but not issue preclusion."); cf.
Claim preclusion is applicable if there was a prior DEA proceeding in which the respondent had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims.
The Court of Appeals' opinion, written by Judge Alok Ahuja and joined by Judges Mark Pfeiffer and Victor Howard, (92) began by discussing the claim preclusion issues raised by Mason.
2010) ("The basic difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion is simply put: claim preclusion applies to whole claims, whether litigated or not, whereas issue preclusion applies to particular issues that have been contested and resolved."); see generally 18A FED.
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."The result is that none of the proceedings to date have looked into the substance of the cases, and the majority of evidence available to the plaintiffs has not been presented to the courts," said HadjiGiovannis.
I also wrote that the concept of claim preclusion is also referred to as "the rule against splitting a [single] cause of action." (36) The bar of a judgment for the defendant extinguishes the entire cause of action or claim, including items of the claim that were not raised in the former action.
terminology, the two forms are referred to as "issue preclusion" (traditionally known as "collateral estoppel") and "claim preclusion" respectively.
(109) The same decision denied Toyota's motion to terminate the investigation based on the doctrine of claim preclusion, (110) though Toyota was subsequently permitted to renew this motion.
Background Legal Principles: Claim Preclusion and Summary
to apply traditional rules of claim preclusion against a background of
(52) The court agreed with the plaintiff in that the specific claims it raised before COFC differ from the claims it raised in its ASBCA appeals, but the court recognized that the claims were all "based on the same, or nearly the same, factual allegations, that is, that the Government's failure to timely act and its penchant for changing the design led to delays for which plaintiff contends it is entitled to be compensated." (53) The court goes on to state that because the plaintiff's COFC claims were based on the same transactional facts as its nine appeals to the ASBCA, the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata barred the action.