Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)

Citation: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Parent Document: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2005-12-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356005/murray-v-zullo/ ↗

Full Text

1,046 chars

The doctrine of claim preclusion (or res judicata) makes a final judgment in a prior action conclusive on a party and its privies, and prevents relitigation of all matters that were or could have been adjudicated in the action. Blanchette v. School Comm’n of Westwood, 427 Mass. 176, 179 n.3 (1998). There are three essential elements to the doctrine of claim preclusion: “(1) the identity or privity of the parties to the present and prior actions;' (2) the identity of the cause of action; and (3) a prior final judgment on the merits.” TLT Constr. Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe and Assocs., Inc., 48 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4, (1999), quoting Gloucester Marine Rys. Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 386, 390 (1994) Clearly, two of these elements are satisfied: the parties in the instant action are identical to those in the summary process case, and the summary process action resulted in a final judgment for the Zullos on the merits. The only question then is whether the claims in the two actions are identical. I conclude that they are.

Other Sections in This Document (28)

Full Text