Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,758 chars

facts viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Williamson, Inc. v. Calibre

Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 394, 398, 54 P.3d 1186 (2002).

We conduct de novo review on whether collateral estoppel applies to bar relitigation of an

issue. State v. Vasquez, 109 Wn. App. 310, 314, 34 P.3d 1255 (2001).

“‘The doctrine of collateral estoppel is well known to Washington law as a means

of preventing the endless relitigation of issues already actually litigated by the parties and decided

by a competent tribunal. Collateral estoppel promotes judicial economy and prevents

inconvenience, and even harassment, of parties.’” Hadley v. Maxwell, 144 Wn.2d 306, 311, 27

P.3d 600 (2001) (quoting Reninger v. Dep’t of Corr., 134 Wn.2d 437, 449, 951 P.2d 782 (1998)).

It is distinguished from claim preclusion, or res judicata, “‘in that, instead of preventing a second

assertion of the same claim or cause of action, it prevents a second litigation of issues between the

parties, even though a different claim or cause of action is asserted.’” Rains v. State, 100 Wn.2d

660, 665, 674 P.2d 165 (1983) (emphasis added) (quoting Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi, 91

Wn.2d 223, 225-26, 588 P.2d 725 (1978)). Res judicata “is intended to prevent relitigation of an

entire cause of action and collateral estoppel is intended to prevent retrial of one or more of the

crucial issues or determinative facts determined in previous litigation.” Luisi Truck Lines, Inc. v.

Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm’n, 72 Wn.2d 887, 894, 435 P.2d 654 (1967). Yet, “collateral

estoppel is not a technical defense to prevent a fair and full hearing on the merits of the issues to

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II