Origin Long-standing in Western legal tradition; discussed in dedicated legal treatises since at least the sixteenth century, including Angelo Gambiglioni's De re iudicata (1579).
Res judicata, Latin for a matter judged, is the doctrine of claim preclusion: once a court issues a final judgment on the merits, the same parties are barred from relitigating the same cause of action. It serves finality and judicial economy, and in common law systems is distinguished from collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which bars relitigation of a specific issue rather than an entire claim. Its scope differs by legal family: common law jurisdictions apply it broadly to any claim arising from the litigated subject matter, while civil law jurisdictions such as Germany and Japan apply it more narrowly, tied to differing theories of what constitutes a single cause of action. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Origin PeriodLong-standing in Western legal tradition; discussed in dedicated legal treatises since at least the sixteenth century, including Angelo Gambiglioni's De re iudicata (1579). 1 Core PrincipleA losing plaintiff cannot bring another suit against the same defendant on identical claims (bar), and a winning plaintiff cannot sue the same defendant again on the same cause of action for additional recovery (merger). 2 Origin Period
Origin Period (category)Early Modern (1500-1800) 1 Classification
Doctrine Category Connections
Associated With
Source Res Judicata (Cornell LII Wex)
In Area Of Law
Entity-backed identity for the doctrine category value this doctrine already carries as an enum fact, resolved to a doctrine entity by an explicit value-to-entity map (phase 3 bucket conversion, docs\design_entity_backed_browse_buckets_20260928.md). The enum fact itself stays on the entity unchanged.
In Legal System
Source Res Judicata (Wikipedia)
Sources
1. Res Judicata (Wikipedia)
WikipediaDefinition and Jurisdictional Differences sections
Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
Rationale section, Justice Potter Stewart on res judicata and collateral estoppel
Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties ... from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause.
- refers to a case in which there has been a final judgment... and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim
- In Legal System: Common Law, Jurisdictional Differences section
- In Group: Preclusion and Finality Doctrines, lead: 'also known as claim preclusion'
View the Source 2. Res Judicata (Cornell LII Wex)
Cornell Law School Legal Information InstituteBar and Merger section
Res judicata is a Latin phrase that translates to 'a matter judged.'
- Associated With: Estoppel, Important Note section (distinguishing claim preclusion from issue preclusion)
View the Source Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel?
Res judicata bars a whole claim; collateral estoppel bars a specific issue.
Res judicata, also called claim preclusion, means a final judgment on the merits bars the same parties from relitigating a claim, including issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion, applies once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, and that decision may bar relitigation of that issue in a suit on a different cause of action. Justice Potter Stewart described both doctrines in Allen v. McCurry (1980) as relieving parties of the costs of multiple lawsuits and conserving judicial resources.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.