Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
collateral estoppel
Read a random definition: mesonomic
A quick definition of collateral estoppel:
Collateral estoppel is a rule that says if a court has already decided an important issue in a case, that decision can't be changed in another case. This rule applies to both criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, it protects people from being tried for the same thing twice. In civil cases, it means that if a court has already decided an issue, it can't be argued again in a new case. There are two types of collateral estoppel: defensive and offensive. Defensive collateral estoppel means that someone who was not part of the original case can still use the rule to protect themselves. Offensive collateral estoppel means that the person who started the new case can use the rule against someone who was in the original case. There are some exceptions to these rules, but they are decided by the court on a case-by-case basis.
A more thorough explanation:
Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous case. It is used in both criminal and civil cases.
In criminal law, collateral estoppel protects defendants from being tried for the same issue in more than one criminal trial. This is because of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. If an issue has already been decided in a previous trial, the defendant cannot be tried for that same issue again.
In civil procedure, collateral estoppel is used to prevent a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous case. This is known as issue preclusion. If an issue has already been decided in a previous case, the party cannot bring it up again in a new case.
Defensive issue preclusion occurs when the party being sued raises collateral estoppel. For example, if a court determines that Frank cannot recover in a lawsuit against Sally because Frank was negligent, then Susan can raise collateral estoppel as to Frank’s negligence if she too is sued by Frank.
Offensive issue preclusion occurs when the party who initiates the lawsuit/claim raises collateral estoppel against the defendant in a previous case. For example, if a court determines that Frank can recover against Sally because Sally was negligent, Susan generally cannot raise collateral estoppel as to Frank’s negligence in a second case against Frank.
Courts have broad discretion as to whether they will allow non-mutual offensive issue preclusion, with a few common justifications outlined in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore. These justifications include misaligned incentives in the first case, different procedural factors in the first case than in the second case, and whether the plaintiff in the second case could have easily joined the first case.
Overall, collateral estoppel is an important legal doctrine that helps prevent parties from re-litigating issues that have already been decided. This helps to promote efficiency in the legal system and ensures that justice is served fairly.