res judicata

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

Synonyms for res judicata

a matter already settled in court

References in periodicals archive ?
1995), the court relied on a statutory "exceptional circumstances" exception to deny claim preclusion in a second suit by an injured party against the premises insurer.
22) Issue preclusion is often distinguished from claim preclusion because it only bars litigation of those issues that have already been fully litigated.
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.
A claim preclusion impede a rediscussao de um pedido ja julgado, tornando imutavel (preclusion) a decisao a respeito da pretensao (claim) formulada pelo autor.
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 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.
Supreme Court formulated the concept of claim preclusion as a final judgment on the merits that were or could have been raised in that action.
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