Aug
27
Issue preclusion, which was formerly known as collateral estoppel, is a common law doctrine that prevents an individual or party to a lawsuit from relitigating an issue once it has been decided in a previous case. The idea behind issue preclusion is that once an issue has been decided, it is a waste of the court’s time as well as the parties’ time to relitigate the issue in a subsequent trial.
Issue preclusion can be used offensively or defensively in any lawsuit. When it is used defensively, it is being used by the defense to prevent the plaintiff from raising an issue in the trial. In this case, the defendant is trying to avoid relitigating an issue that was decided in a previous case against him or her in order to prevent the plaintiff from spending time on that issue. If the issue which is being decided was decided in a previous case and was the defining portion of a not guilty verdict, it may prevent the plaintiff from bringing any of his or her case at all.
When it is used offensively, collateral estoppel is used by the plaintiff to prevent the defendant from attempting to relitigate an issue already decided against him or her in a previous suit. The idea is the same as when using defensive collateral estoppel.
The previous case where the issue was decided does not need to be in the same realm as the second case. For example, if an individual is found guilty in a criminal court of X and then sued in civil court for the same thing, elements of the criminal court case are precluded from the civil court case, if they were decided against the defendant. The trick here is keeping in mind the burden of persuasion or standard of evidence. If a criminal court case is decided against a defendant, the issues in that case will carry down to a civil court and be estopped. The burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the civil case has a “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing” evidence standard. Either way, the higher proof required for the criminal court is sufficient to preclude the issue in a civil court.
The same does not work for going from civil to criminal. Civil has a lower burden of proof than criminal and so just because a defendant was found guilty of something in a civil court does not mean that the civil court will be able to meet, automatically, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
By: Joseph Devine
About the Author:
The Lake Geneva personal injury attorneys of Habush Habush & Rottier know how to make previous criminal decisions work for their clients to avoid unnecessary litigation fees. The firm is dedicated to giving each client a small firm feel while affording all of the resources of a large firm.
Joseph Devine
