Opinion ID: 6713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Texas Collateral Estoppel Doctrine

Text: 17 Under Texas law, the doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, bars relitigation of any ultimate issue of fact actually litigated and essential to the judgment in a prior suit, regardless of whether the second suit is based upon the same cause of action. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex.1984); see also J.M. Muniz, Inc. v. Mercantile Texas Credit Corp., 833 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1987). Once an essential issue is actually litigated and determined, that issue is conclusive in a subsequent action between the same parties, or persons in privity with them, regardless of whether the second suit is based on the same cause of action; collateral estoppel merely precludes the same issues from being reurged. Van Dyke v. Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickering, 697 S.W.2d 381, 384 (Tex.1985); Wilhite v. Adams, 640 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex.1982). 18 In general, a party seeking to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel must establish that: 19 (1) the facts to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; 20 (2) these facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and 21 (3) the parties who litigated the issue were cast as adversaries. 22 Mower v. Boyer, 811 S.W.2d 560, 563 (Tex.1990); Eagle Properties, Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (1990); Bonniwell, 663 S.W.2d at 818. 23 This Court's task then is to apply these factors and to determine whether the Kerr County judgment bars Daniels' subsequent causes of action. 24