The issue presented for appeal in both cases, is whether the doctrine of issue preclusion applies to prevent Balele from pursuing these claims. This court recently addressed the proper standard of review for cases involving issue preclusion. Certain of the factors which the circuit court must consider in deciding whether to apply issue preclusion involve questions of law which we review de novo, while other factors are matters for the exercise of discretion by the trial court. See Ambrose v. Continental Ins. Issue preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation in a subsequent action of an issue of law or fact that has been actually litigated and decided in a prior action.
Summary judgment is a final and conclusive judgment for the purposes of issue preclusion.
97-3029, slip op. Further, issue preclusion, unlike claim preclusion, does not require an identity of parties. When deciding whether to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion, courts must conduct a fundamental fairness analysis. Balele argues that the application of these factors requires that his claims before the Personnel Commission be allowed to go forward. In both cases, the circuit court determined that Balele's claims were barred by issue preclusion.