Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,405 chars

evidence of the second jury's verdict was both irrelevant to Corbis's after-

acquired evidence defense and unfairly prejudicial. His contentions are

unavailing.

We apply the same principles of relevancy and prejudice summarized

above.

A

Lodis first asserts that the trial court erred by prohibiting him, based on the

law of the case doctrine, from relitigating the question of whether he breached a

fiduciary duty owed to Corbis.

The law of the case doctrine "is often confused with other closely related

doctrines." Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41, 123 P.3d 844 (2005), all of

which promote predictability, uniformity, consistency, finality, and efficiency in the

law, including stare decisis, collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion), and res

judicata (i.e., claim preclusion). Because this case involves an attempt to

relitigate a prior claim, the doctrine most related to the law of the case as it

applies to these circumstances is res judicata.

A primer on the relationship between these doctrines is helpful.
Res judicata generally bars not only attempts to relitigate
matters actually litigated, but also all other matters that should have
been asserted in the earlier proceeding. In re Estate of Siebrasse.
[ ] 722 N.W.2d 86, 90 [(S.D. 2006)]. The "law of the case" doctrine,

-19
             
No. 72342-1-1/20