Proctor v. LeClaire

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing that the party seeking to apply issue preclusion has the burden of showing the issues in question are identical
• finding an issue collaterally estopped where Plaintiff “ha[d] not shown any lack of opportunity to litigate”
• “[T]he initial authorization for confinement and the subsequent decisions to continue confinement—although plainly involving considerations that overlap—are not ... the same transaction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• claim preclusion does not apply when the plaintiff is bringing two separate causes of action
• “The fact that several operative facts may be common to successive actions between the same parties does not mean that a judgment in the first will always preclude litigation of the second.”
• “Under the doctrine of res judicata, or 10 claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies 11 from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).