Topps v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an unelaborated appellate decision denying a petition for prohibition does not establish the law of the case
• holding that issues examined and rejected in a prior certiorari proceeding could not be raised again on appeal from an order granting summary judgment
• holding that res judicata bars claims that could have been raised in earlier proceedings
• recognizing the same differences between res judicata (i.e., claim preclusion) and issue preclusion (i.e., collateral estoppel)
• explaining that at common law, in order for res judicata and collateral estoppel to apply, mutuality of parties or their privies must exist
• “The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation in a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that could have been raised.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).