Utah Res Judicata

From Lawpendium
Jump to: navigation, search
Banner Ad photo UtahWillsBannerAdforLawpendiumPhotoshop_zpscc99065d.png

“The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Claim preclusion corresponds to causes of action; issue preclusion corresponds to the facts and issues underlying causes of action.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194


The Utah Supreme Court case Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, et al., 2012 UT 38 states:

This case involves the claim preclusion branch of res judicata. “‘Claim preclusion is premised on the principle that a controversy should be adjudicated only once.’” Allen v. Moyer, 2011 UT 44, ¶ 6 259 P.3d 1049 (quoting Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194). In determining whether res judicata bars a claim, we impose a three-part test:

First, both cases must involve the same parties or their
privies. Second, the claim that is alleged to be barred
must have been presented in the first suit or be one
that could and should have been raised in the first
action. Third, the first suit must have resulted in a
final judgment on the merits.

Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 (internal quotation marks omitted). The second prong is often the most contested element of the claim preclusion analysis. See, e.g., id.; Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 21, 16 P.3d 1214. And the second prong is the only one at issue in this case. The parties all agree that both cases involve the same parties and their privies and that the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits.5 But the parties dispute whether Ms. Gillmor’s public highway claims “could and should have been raised in the first action.”

Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, et al., 2012 UT 38, ¶ 10