Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
A party that actually litigated and lost on an issue in a prior proceeding is barred from re-litigating that same issue in subsequent proceedings, even if the claims are different.
Elements / Test
- Same issue — identical factual or legal question
- Actually litigated and determined — not just pleaded; must have been contested and decided
- Necessary and essential to the prior judgment — if issue was one of multiple alternative grounds, neither may be preclusive under Restatement (Second)
- Full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding
Exceptions and Edge Cases
Mutuality rule (traditional): Only parties to the prior suit could invoke preclusion. Now largely abandoned:
- Defensive non-mutual estoppel: Defendant uses prior judgment against plaintiff (Blonder-Tongue) — permitted
- Offensive non-mutual estoppel: Plaintiff uses prior judgment against defendant (Parklane Hosiery) — permitted in federal court with discretion; Parklane factors: (1) plaintiff could have joined earlier suit; (2) defendant had incentive to litigate fully; (3) no inconsistent prior judgments; (4) no procedural opportunities unavailable in first suit
Criminal → Civil preclusion: Criminal conviction may preclude relitigation of issues in subsequent civil case; acquittal generally does not (different burden of proof).
Administrative proceedings: Issue preclusion can apply to final administrative adjudications (United States v. Utah Construction).
Policy Rationale
Prevents inconsistent judgments; judicial efficiency; reliance on prior determinations. Offensive use is more controversial because it permits free-riding by plaintiffs who wait for others to litigate first.
Key Cases
| Case | Rule |
|---|---|
| Blonder-Tongue Labs. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971) | Defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel permitted |
| Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979) | Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel permitted with judicial discretion |
| Allen v. McCurry (1980) | State court criminal conviction bars re-litigation of Fourth Amendment issues in § 1983 action |