Opinion ID: 1124269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Relitigation Bar

Text: CFO's quest for dismissal at nisi prius was rested on a claim-preclusion bar, but we conclude that issue preclusion is the correct concept that governs here. Under the doctrine of issue preclusion (formerly known as collateral estoppel), [19] once a court has decided an issue of fact or of law necessary to its judgment, the same parties or their privies may not relitigate that issue in a suit brought upon a different claim. [20] Although the principle of issue preclusion operates to bar from relitigation both correct and erroneous resolutions of jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional challenges, [21] the doctrine may not be invoked if the party against whom the earlier decision is interposed did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the critical issue in the previous case. [22] The law affords no more than a single opportunity to litigate a disputed question of a tribunal's jurisdiction. [23] The issue-preclusion bar is distinct from that of claim preclusion (formerly known as res judicata ). Under the latter principle, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating not only the adjudicated claim but also any theories or issues that were actually decided, or could have been decided, in that action. [24] The first lawsuit came in the framework of a cause of action different from the statutory claim that is now asserted in this case. For invocation of issue preclusion, there need not be a judgment on the merits (as it is often the case with res judicata ), but only a final determination of a material issue (common to both cases). [25] An order is final within the meaning of 12 O.S.1991 § 953 [26] if it prevents judgment upon the process in progress, even though the aggrieved party would have been free to abandon the course then in pursuit to relaunch or press the same claim along a different remedial track. The September 11 dismissal clearly meets the standards of a final and appealable order. [27] The first (September 11, 1991) dismissal, based on an adjudication upon the tendered forum-selection clause, determined a single issue dehors the merits. It decided no issues upon the claim or defenses pressed in National I. [28] The sole remedy for correcting that determination was by appeal. Absent such appeal, the ruling became final in the issue-preclusion sense. Its terms are conclusive insofar as they declare that (a) Oklahoma is not an available forum to litigate rights derived from the parties' contract in which the forum-selection clause is found and (b) litigation of those rights may be conducted in a Texas forum.