When we have a disagreement, we usually take it to a court to settle it once and for all. The court’s decision is final, and we can’t keep arguing about it. This is because the court uses several rules to make sure that once a decision is made, it can’t be changed. These rules are called the law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Once the court makes a final decision, it can only be changed in specific circumstances. In the meantime, the court can still reconsider its preliminary decisions before making a final judgment. The trial court has a lot of power to make decisions, and the appellate court won’t usually change those decisions. If someone doesn’t like a decision made before a trial, they still have to object during the trial for it to be reviewed later. Once a case is finished and the time to appeal is over, it’s usually done for good, unless there are very special circumstances. When a lower court’s decision is challenged on appeal, the higher court gives more weight to the lower court’s factual findings than its legal decisions. And when a case is finished, it’s usually considered final, but there are some legal rules that determine if the case can be reopened later. The law of the case is a rule that says decisions made by an appellate court in a case have to be followed by the trial court and any future appeals in the same case. This only applies to issues that were actually decided on appeal, and the facts of the case have to stay the same for the decision to apply. It doesn’t apply if following the decision would be unfair. It’s important to note that a brief opinion affirming a decision might not establish the law of the case if there were multiple issues at play, and only the issues actually presented and considered on appeal count. The law of the case doctrine is more flexible than res judicata and only applies if the facts of the case remain the same. The appellate court is also only bound by its prior decision if the facts haven’t changed. There is also a exception for manifest injustice, meaning the court can change its decision if it realizes it was wrong and caused a lot of unfairness. Res judicata, on the other hand, only applies after a final judgment has been made in a previous lawsuit, and it prevents the same issue from being litigated again. Res judicata means that once a court has made a final decision on a case, the same parties can’t keep going back to court over the same issue. This also applies to any related issues that could have been brought up in the original case. It’s basically a way to make sure that court decisions are final and can’t be constantly challenged. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the law of the case and res judicata are different. The law of the case applies when there are successive appeals in the same case, while res judicata applies when a judgment has become final in a prior case. Res judicata can prevent a party from re-litigating the same issues in a later case, but it only applies to the facts as they existed at the time of the prior judgment. If the facts change and give rise to a new claim, then collateral estoppel, rather than res judicata, may apply. Res judicata is powerful, but courts won’t apply it in a way that would be unfair. Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prevents the same parties from re-litigating the same issues that have already been decided in a previous case. For this doctrine to apply, the issue must have been a critical part of the prior decision, there must have been a fair opportunity to argue it, the parties must be the same, and the issue must have actually been litigated. There must also have been a final decision from a court with the power to hear the case. This doctrine is similar to res judicata in that both require a final judgment, but getting the case reviewed by an appeals court isn’t necessary for either doctrine to apply. Collateral estoppel and res judicata are legal concepts that prevent a party from re-litigating the same issues or claims in a subsequent lawsuit.
Res judicata applies when the subsequent claim is the same as the first action, while collateral estoppel applies even if the two causes of action are different.
It’s like a double layer of protection against re-litigating the same things in court. In a case involving a school board and parents of an autistic child, the court ruled that a second claim about speech therapy services for a different school year was not barred by res judicata, which applies when the same cause of action is brought again. However, collateral estoppel applied because the issue had already been decided against the parents in a previous case. In criminal cases, the concept of “successiveness” comes up in postconviction cases, where repetitive claims are usually denied as successive. Double jeopardy also prevents the state from filing successive criminal charges against defendants. In conclusion, it’s important to understand that res judicata and estoppel are defenses listed in the rules of civil procedure. On remand, the law of the case is a matter that the court must consider. These doctrines are not jurisdictional, meaning they don’t determine if a court has the power to hear a case. Parties must identify the applicable doctrine and specifically point out the claim or issue they want to be barred. However, a party can argue that these doctrines shouldn’t be applied if doing so would cause a clear injustice. It’s also important to note that courts are obligated to follow precedent, known as stare decisis. This is a list of legal cases and references to them.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed-understanding-judicial-doctrines-of-finality/
Leave a Reply