All four doctrines were developed by courts in the context of judicial cases. The doctrines, however, are important to administrative law as well.

Res Judicata Latin for “a matter adjudged.” Doctrine that precludes a party from relitigating a final judgment on the merits issued by a competent court or administrative tribunal.

The doctrine of res judicata, also called claim preclusion, prevents the same claim from being filed and litigated more than once. Every person is entitled to his or her day in court - not days in court.

In the administrative setting, res judicata applies to refiling of claims and applications. For example, if a claim for disability benefits is decided by the Social Security Administration, subsequent claims based on the same facts and law are res judicata. A party alleging that an action is res judicata must prove four elements.

First, there must have been a previous proceeding.

Second, the current case and former case must have an identity of parties; that is, the two cases must involve the same parties.

Those in privity to a party satisfy this requirement. For example, Shirley files a workers’ compensation claim, which is denied. After the decision is made, Shirley dies. Her estate then files a new, but identical, claim. Because the estate is in privity with Shirley, the claim would be res judicata.

Third, the claims of the current and former case must be identical. If a new case involves a claim or issue not raised in the first case, res judicata does not apply. Note: Res judicata applies not only to claims that actually were raised, but also to those that should have been raised in the prior proceeding.

Fourth, there must have been a final decision on the merits in the previous case. Dismissals without prejudice do not satisfy this requirement until the time to have them set aside has passed. Summary judgment entered prior to final judgment is not final. Default judgments are not res judicata, as they are not on the merits.

Collateral estoppel is similar to res judicata. Whereas res judicata prevents the relitigation of claims, collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of issues. As with res judicata, a person asserting that an issue is estopped bears the burden of proving that collateral estoppel is applicable. The elements of collateral estoppel are slightly different from the elements of res judicata, though.

First, there must have been a previous proceeding. Second, the parties in the current and previous proceedings must be identical. Again, persons in privity with parties satisfy this requirement.

Third, there must be an identity of issues; that is, a person must have been given the opportunity to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding before that issue can be estopped. Fourth, the issue must have been decided in the prior proceeding and such decision must have been necessary to the prior verdict, finding, or judgment. If a court rules on an issue that is not central to the outcome of the case, the issue may be reheard in a subsequent proceeding.

Equitable Estoppel Doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a particular defense or raising a particular issue because it is unfair to allow the party to do so.

Laches Common law doctrine that prohibits a party from raising a right or claim when the party’s delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced an adverse party.

If a party fails to raise an issue or right until such a time as an adverse party has been prejudiced, then laches may be used to estop the first party from asserting the right or claim.

There are three essential elements to laches. First, the party against whom laches is claimed must have been aware of the right or claim that was not raised. Second, there must have been unreasonable delay in raising the right or claim. Third, the delay must cause the adverse party to suffer some prejudice.

Cases can be found in several different publications. Each publication may have a different volume number, name of the series and starting page for the same case.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed.2d 147 (1973). In the above example 410 U.S. 113, refers to the volume number of the United States Reports and page number where the reported decision of Roe v. Wade can be found. 93 S. Ct. 705 gives the same information with respect to West's Supreme Court Reporter and 35 L. Ed. 147, refers to the volume number and page where the case is reported in Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer's Edition Second Series.

Unit Eight Assignment Your final research project will require you to prepare a 4 – 6 page memorandum of law to your supervising attorney outlining the issues and law associated with the parents’ and Martha’s claims. In addition, you will be asked to prepare a Motion for a Protective Order to prevent enforcement of the board’s determination pending the outcome of the appeal.

Ensure that the Memorandum is: (1) 4 – 6 pages in length; (2) Double-spaced and in a 12-point font; (3) Well-written and grammatically correct; (4) Organized in a logical fashion that makes it easy to follow and understand; and (5) Cited properly.

Keep moving forward on your work. We are almost done with this term.