COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
A doctrine by which an earlier decision rendered by a court in a lawsuit between parties is conclusive as to the issues or controverted points so that they cannot be relitigated in subsequent proceedings involving the same parties.
Collateral estoppel is an AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE that must be pleaded by a defendant in
civil actions. The similar affirmative defense of
RES JUDICATA differs from collateral ESTOPPEL
in that it completely precludes the relitigation of
a claim, demand, or CAUSE OF ACTION,as
opposed to an issue or controverted point, in a
subsequent proceeding between the same par-
ties to an earlier action.
The application of the collateral estoppel doctrine promotes the speedy administration of
justice by preventing the continuous, duplicative
litigation of fruitless claims when relitigation of
them is unlikely to change the original decision
made regarding them.
Requirements
Issues or findings of fact, not conclusions of
law, are subject to collateral estoppel only in cer-
tain cases. The issue against which collateral
estoppel is claimed must be identical to an issue
already litigated in the earlier case and must
have been fully litigated at that time. In addition,
the court must have actually decided the issue.
The decision on the issue must have been inte-
gral in the outcome of the original lawsuit. This
last requirement assures the issue was vigorously
litigated so that it is fair to prevent its relitigation
in a second action because there is little likeli-
hood that the results will be different the second
time.
If an action has been settled by the agree-
ment of the parties, most jurisdictions will not
apply collateral estoppel, since the issues have
not been fairly and fully litigated.
Persons Affected
Collateral estoppel is binding only upon
those parties to the first action in which a deci-
sion was made and anyone who might be
regarded as in privity with those parties, such as
a bailor and bailee or a principal and his or her
agent. In many jurisdictions a party in a lawsuit
who is not subject to the estoppel effect of a
prior judgment because the party was not a
party to the original action in which the judg-
ment was rendered can, in certain instances, use
that judgment to bind his or her adversary who
had been a party in the former action.
A defendant who, in a second action, pleads
the defenses of collateral estoppel against the
plaintiff uses it defensively. In many jurisdic-
tions this use of the doctrine is considered fair
because the plaintiff has the advantage of select-
ing the defendant and the forum in which the
case is to be decided. The decision to commence
the second lawsuit is based, in part, upon the
findings or issues in the first action, and, there-
fore, it is not unreasonable to bind the plaintiff
by the issues or findings made in that case.
In contrast, a plaintiff in a subsequent law-
suit who asserts collateral estoppel against a
defendant uses the doctrine offensively to but-
tress his or her cause of action. Fewer jurisdic-
tions, however, permit its offensive use since the
defendant against whom it would be applied has
neither the choice of forum nor of adversary.
Limitations
Collateral estoppel has limited applicability
in cases where the issues raised in the court
where the action was first heard were beyond its
jurisdiction. In antitrust cases brought in federal
court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such
matters, prior state court rulings concerning
antitrust violations made during the course of
deciding the legality of a contract will not be
given collateral estoppel effect. Courts reason
that the punitive and exclusive nature of the fed-
eral remedy in antitrust cases precludes collat-
eral estoppel based upon state court decisions.
In contrast, federal courts have applied col-
lateral estoppel in patent cases to any underlying
facts decided by state courts but not to facts
alleged to prove the issue of patent validity or
infringement.
The availability of collateral estoppel is also
limited by changes in the law that take place
between the original and subsequent action.
Collateral estoppel will not apply if modifica-
tions in the applicable law alter the operative
facts needed to obtain a favorable ruling. To do
otherwise would deny an individual EQUAL PRO-
TECTION of law merely because of the luck of
the person who obtained the previous ruling.
Criminal Matters
Jurisdictions differ on whether to give an estoppel effect to a criminal conviction of a party currently involved in a civil lawsuit. Traditionally, estoppel was not permitted, since the plaintiff in the civil action was not a party to the criminal proceeding. Today, a number of states give full collateral estoppel effect to a previous criminal conviction. Acquittal of a crime is not given collateral estoppel effect in a civil proceeding because the plaintiff in the civil suit was not a party to the criminal proceeding and could not offer evidence against the defendant. This rule prevented O. J. SIMPSON from using his acquittal of murder as a defense in the civil trials brought against him by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman following the murder trial.
In addition, the difference between the BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT standard of proof necessary for a criminal conviction and the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE standard in civil actions would make it unfair to allow the acquitted defendant to use his or her acquittal to bind the opponent in the civil matter in which the standard of proof to obtain a judgment is not as stringent.
