Opinion ID: 2634610
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Policies Underlying Issue Preclusion

Text: It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that [r]es judicata, or claim preclusion, and collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, are doctrines that limit a litigant to one opportunity to litigate aspects of the case to prevent inconsistent results and multiplicity of suits and to promote finality and judicial economy. Claim preclusion and issue preclusion are, however, separate doctrines that involve distinct questions of law. [14] Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai'i 43, 53, 85 P.3d 150, 160 (2004) (internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and footnote omitted). Issue preclusion applies to a subsequent suit between the parties or their privies on a different cause of action and prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue that was actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action. Id. at 54, 85 P.3d at 161 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases in original). The party asserting issue preclusion bears the burden of establishing that (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented in the action in question; (2) there is a final judgment on the merits; (3) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was essential to the final judgment; and (4) the party against whom [issue preclusion] is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. As to the fourth requirement, it is not necessary that the party asserting issue preclusion in the second suit was a party in the first suit. Id. (citations omitted). The policies underlying issue preclusion and claim preclusion are well-defined: The public interest staunchly permits every litigant to have an opportunity to try his case on the merits; but it also requires that he be limited to one such opportunity. Furthermore, public reliance upon judicial pronouncements requires that what has been finally determined by competent tribunals shall be accepted as undeniable legal truth. Its legal efficacy is not to be undermined. Also, these doctrines tend to eliminate vexation and expense to the parties, wasted use of judicial machinery and the possibility of inconsistent results. Ellis v. Crockett, 51 Haw. 45, 56, 451 P.2d 814, 822 (1969) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, reh'g denied, 51 Haw. 86, 451 P.2d 814 (1969)). Stated differently, issue preclusion and claim preclusion share the common goals of preventing inconsistent results, preventing a multiplicity of suits, and promoting finality and judicial economy. Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 143, 148-49, 976 P.2d 904, 909-10 (1999).