About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


62 Nw. U. L. Rev. 357 (1967-1968)
Res Judicata/Claim Preclusion: Judgment for the Claimant

handle is hein.journals/illlr62 and id is 369 raw text is: Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 62, No. 3 Copyright 0 1967 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. RES JUDICATA/CLAIM PRECLUSION: JUDGMENT FOR THE CLAIMANT Allan D. Vestalt INTRODUCTION A judgment may have an effect on a subsequent law suit in a num- t ber of different ways. The first law suit may have an important effect on the issues of law or fact involved in the second suit. A deci- sion on an issue between the parties may have some effect on an attempt to litigate this same issue in a subsequent suit. It may be held that a litigant should have but a single opportunity to litigate the issue. This concept has been labeled estoppel or issue preclu- sion.' Once the issue has been litigated, it cannot be relitigated. On the other hand, the judgment in the first suit may have an effect upon the totality of the second suit. That is, an earlier decision may preclude entirely a second suit on the same claim. A judgment on the merits in the first suit may be said to be a bar to any subse- quent litigation concerning the original claim. This may be catego- rized as claim preclusion.'2 Under this doctrine, the plaintiff is not allowed to bring a second suit on the original claim; the court's judgment is determinative. As the Supreme Court of the United States has stated concerning these two facets: The general rule of res judicata applies to repetitious suits in- volving the same cause of action. . . . The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final t John F. Murray Professor of Law, University of Iowa School of Law. IA discussion of this concept is presented in a series of articles. See Vestal, Preclu- sion/Res Judicata Variables: Adjudicating Bodies, 54 GEo. L.J. 857 (1966); Vestal, Preclusion/Res Judicata Variables: Parties, 50 IowA L. R. 27 (1964); Vestal, Rationale of Preclusion, 9 ST. Louss U.L.J. 29 (1964); Vestal, The Constitution and Preclusion/Res Judicata, 62 MicH. L. Rav. 33 (1963); Vestal, Preclusion/Res Judicata Variables: Crim- inal Prosecutions, 19 VAND. L. REv. 683 (1966); Vestal, Preclusion/Res Judicata Variables: Nature of the Controversy, 1965 WAsH. U.L.Q. 158. 2For examples of the use of this terminology, see Towle v. Boeing Airplane Co., 364 F.2d 590 (8th Cir. 1966) and Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co., 327 F.2d 30 (8th Cir. 1964).