Opinion ID: 1117027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Collateral Estoppel: A Multi-Purpose Doctrine

Text: The doctrine of `[c]ollateral estoppel [issue preclusion], like the related doctrine of res judicata [claim preclusion], has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue ... and of providing judicial economy.' Roy v. Jasper Co., 666 F.2d 714, 715 (1st Cir.1981) (loss-of-consortium action in which collateral estoppel applied) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649, 58 L.Ed.2d 552, 559 (1979)). The doctrine additionally protects the integrity of judgments by preventing inconsistent results. Bender v. Peay, 433 N.E.2d 788, 792 (Ind. App. 1982) (Neal, J., dissenting) (citing numerous authorities). Accordingly, [w]hen the injured party has lost his personal-injury action, [1] most of the more modern authorities apply issue preclusion against [subsequent] claims for spousal consortium. [2] Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 48, Reporter's Note to comment c, at 33 (1982).