Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Self-Quiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Res judicata is often referred to as:
Choice 1 Issue preclusion.
Choice 2 Claim preclusion.
Choice 3 Judicial economy.
Choice 4 Judicial reality.
Collateral estoppel is often referred to as:
Choice 1 Issue preclusion.
Choice 2 Claim preclusion.
Choice 3 Judicial economy.
Choice 4 Judicial reality.
Joe and Bob enter into a contract whereby Bob promises to sell Joe his house. Bob later refuses to sell the house. Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for breach of contract and only alleges that he has lost the fee he paid his real estate broker. A jury determines that Bob is liable. Two years later, Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for monetary damages he sustained when Bob refused to sell Joe his home, thereby breaching the contract. The specific damages Joe alleges in the second action are moneys he had to expend canceling his moving contract. Bob asserts the doctrine of res judicata. How is the court likely to rule?
Choice 1 The second action is precluded by res judicata because Joe could have included the claims for the monetary damages relating to the moving contract in the original action.
Choice 2 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because Joe could not have included the claims for the monetary damages relating to the moving contract in the original action.
Choice 3 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because the parties are not identical.
Choice 4 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because the first action was not fully adjudicated on the merits.
Joe and Bob enter into a contract whereby Bob promises to sell Joe his house. Bob later refuses to sell the house. Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for breach of contract and only alleges that he has lost the fee he paid his real estate broker. The judge grants Bob’s motion to dismiss for improper service of process. Two years later, Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for monetary damages he sustained when Bob refused to sell Joe his home, thereby breaching the contract. The specific damages Joe alleges in the second action are moneys he had to expend canceling his moving contract. Bob asserts the doctrine of res judicata. How is the court likely to rule?
Choice 1 The second action is precluded by res judicata because Joe could have included the claims for the monetary damages relating to the moving contract in the original action.
Choice 2 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because Joe could not have included the claims for the monetary damages relating to the moving contract in the original action.
Choice 3 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because the parties are not identical.
Choice 4 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because the first action was not fully adjudicated on the merits.
Joe and Bob enter into a contract whereby Bob promises to sell Joe his house. Bob later refuses to sell the house. Joe brings a cause of action against Bob for breach of contract and only alleges that he has lost the fee he paid his real estate broker. The jury decides that Bob is liable to Joe for damages. A year later, Joe brings an action against his real estate broker for breach of contract concerning the intended sale of Bob’s house to Joe. The real estate broker seeks to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel. How is a court likely to rule?
Choice 1 The second action is precluded by res judicata because Joe could have included the claim against the real estate broker in the first action.
Choice 2 The second action is precluded by res judicata because Joe could not have included the claims for the monetary damages relating to the moving contract in the original action.
Choice 3 The second action is not precluded by res judicata because the parties are not identical.
Choice 4 The second action is precluded by res judicata because the first action was fully adjudicated on the merits.

© 2003 - 2018 National Paralegal College