Which statement correctly contrasts res judicata and collateral estoppel?

Which statement correctly contrasts res judicata and collateral estoppel?

• A. Res judicata bars re-litigation of the entire claim; collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue actually litigated.
• B. Res judicata applies to issues; collateral estoppel applies to entire claims.
• C. Both require new parties.
• D. Only collateral estoppel requires a final judgment.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is the difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents a party from relitigating the entire claim once there’s a final judgment on the merits in a prior action, usually with the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevents relitigation of a specific issue that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior action, even if the second action is about a different claim, and typically with the same parties or privies. That’s why the statement pairing these ideas is the best: res judicata bars re-litigation of the entire claim, while collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue that was actually litigated. It reflects the distinct scopes—claim versus issue—while aligning with the requirement of a final judgment in the prior proceeding. The other statements misstate the roles (for example, collateral estoppel does not apply to entire claims, and res judicata does not apply to issues in the broader sense), and they also conflate or ignore the final-judgment requirement that both doctrines share.

The main idea is the difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents a party from relitigating the entire claim once there’s a final judgment on the merits in a prior action, usually with the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevents relitigation of a specific issue that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior action, even if the second action is about a different claim, and typically with the same parties or privies.

That’s why the statement pairing these ideas is the best: res judicata bars re-litigation of the entire claim, while collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue that was actually litigated. It reflects the distinct scopes—claim versus issue—while aligning with the requirement of a final judgment in the prior proceeding.

The other statements misstate the roles (for example, collateral estoppel does not apply to entire claims, and res judicata does not apply to issues in the broader sense), and they also conflate or ignore the final-judgment requirement that both doctrines share.