res judicata doctrine in Illinois

2025“Res judicata applies to bar issues that were actually decided in the first action, as well as matters that could have been decided.” Id. (citing La Salle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 529 (1975)). “[T]hree requirements must be satisfied for the doctrine of res judicata to apply: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies.” Id. at 329-30 (citing Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 470 (2008)). ¶ 20 In their first issue, the

2025Under the doctrine of res judicata “a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction bars any subsequent actions between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action.” Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 334 (1996).

2026The bar extends not only to what was decided but to “matters that could have been decided in that suit.” Id. ¶ 30 The first and third prongs of the res judicata test are easily met here.

2024GridLiance claims that relitigating this issue is barred by res judicata. ¶ 53 “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acts as a bar to a subsequent suit between the parties involving the same cause of action.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 302 (1998).

2023Blair, 215 Ill. 2d at 444 . ¶ 47 Generally, forfeiture is encompassed within the doctrine of res judicata.

2023All issues decided on direct appeal or in an original postconviction petition are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and all issues that could have been raised on direct appeal or in an original postconviction petition, but were not, are waived (People v. Blair, 215 Ill. 2d 427, 443 (2005)), unless the defendant can show both cause for, and prejudice from, failing to raise the claim in the earlier petition or makes a colorable claim of actual innocence (People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 42 ).

2026“Three requirements must be satisfied for res judicata to apply: (1) a final judgment on the merits has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of cause of action exists; and (3) the parties or their privies are identical in both actions.” Id. ¶ 28 The trial court correctly ruled that defendant’s March 25, 2025, amended motion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2025“Res judicata applies to bar issues that were actually decided in the first action, as well as matters that could have been decided.” Id. (citing La Salle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 529 (1975)). “[T]hree requirements must be satisfied for the doctrine of res judicata to apply: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies.” Id. at 329-30 (citing Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 470 (2008)). ¶ 20 In their first issue, the

2025Id. at 456 . “[I]ssues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered waived.” Id.

2025Id. at 456 . “[I]ssues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered waived.” Id.

2003Any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted (People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1989)) and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Silagy, 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (1987)).” Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d at 411-12 .

2003Any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted (People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1989)) and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Silagy, 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (1987)).

2025According to the doctrine of res judicata “ ‘ “a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.” ’ ” Spiller v. Continental - 14 - Tube Co., 95 Ill. 2d 423, 432 (1983) (quoting La Salle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees of Du Page County, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 528 (1975), quoting People v. Kidd, 398 Ill. 405, 408 (1947)). “ ‘Res judicata promotes judicial economy by preventi

2022Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, “ ‘ “a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.” ’ ” People v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, ¶ 29 (quoting People v. Creek, 94 Ill. 2d 526, 533 (1983), quoting People v. Kidd, 398 Ill. 405, 408 (1947)).

2020“For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three requirements must be satisfied: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) there is an identity of cause of action, and (3) there is an identity of parties or their privies.” Id. (citing Downing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 162 Ill. 2d 70, 73-74 , 642 N.E.2d 456, 458 (1994)).

2020“For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three requirements must be satisfied: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) there is an identity of cause of action, and (3) there is an identity of parties or their privies.” Id. (citing Downing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 162 Ill. 2d 70, 73-74 , 642 N.E.2d 456, 458 (1994)).

2003Any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted (People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1989)) and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Silagy, 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (1987)).” Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d at 411-12 .

2003Any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted (People v. Ruiz, 132 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (1989)) and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Silagy, 116 Ill. 2d 357, 365 (1987)).

2022Thus, “a motion to dismiss raises the sole issue of whether the petition being attacked is proper as a matter of law.” Id. ¶ 15 A postconviction proceeding is a collateral proceeding rather than an appeal of the underlying judgment, meaning “issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata [and] issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered [forfeited].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 328 (2009).

2021Thus, any issues that were “raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered waived.” Id. at 456 . ¶ 17 The Act contemplates the filing of only one petition without leave of court. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2014); People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 328 (2009).

2026People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 13 (“issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata.”). 2 ¶ 46 In defendant’s direct appeal, we held that the evidence was not closely balanced when analyzing defendant’s claim that testimony regarding his statement to detectives outside the lockup area was improperly admitted.

2026“Accordingly, issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered forfeited.” People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 13 . ¶ 19 On direct appeal, defendant argued that “the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to 50 years in prison for the first-degree murder of her infant son because the sentence gave inadequate consideration to defendant’s youth, lack of criminal history, background, and potential for rehabilitation.” Starnes, 374 Ill.

2025“Res judicata applies to bar issues that were actually decided in the first action, as well as matters that could have been decided.” Id. (citing La Salle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 529 (1975)). “[T]hree requirements must be satisfied for the doctrine of res judicata to apply: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies.” Id. at 329-30 (citing Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 470 (2008)). ¶ 20 In their first issue, the

2025“Res judicata applies to bar issues that were actually decided in the first action, as well as matters that could have been decided.” Id. (citing La Salle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 529 (1975)). “[T]hree requirements must be satisfied for the doctrine of res judicata to apply: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies.” Id. at 329-30 (citing Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 470 (2008)). ¶ 20 In their first issue, the

2025We disagree. ¶ 29 “[I]n Illinois, a defendant must generally raise a constitutional claim alleging ineffective assistance of [trial] counsel on direct review or risk forfeiting the claim.” People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 , ¶ 47. “[A]ny issues considered by the court on direct appeal are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and issues which could have been considered on direct appeal are deemed procedurally defaulted.” People v. Ligon, 239 Ill. 2d 94, 103 (2010).

2025The court has further explained that, because a postconviction petition is a collateral attack on the judgment, “issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata, while issues that could have been raised, but were not, are forfeited.” Taliani, 2021 IL 125891, ¶ 53 . ¶ 37 Relatedly, as a postconviction proceeding “is not a direct appeal or a continuation of a criminal case but is an independent, collateral attack on a judgment of conviction,” it is “not designed to relitigate guilt or innocence.” People v. Flores, 2022 IL App (2d

2026People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 38 (citing 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2014)); see also People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 , ¶ 24. ¶ 34 Consistent with these principles, the Act contemplates the filing of only one petition without leave of court and codifies the cause-and-prejudice test as the prerequisite to obtaining such relief. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020).

2026People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 38 (citing 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2014)); see also People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 , ¶ 24. ¶ 28 Consistent with these principles, the Act contemplates the filing of only one petition without leave of court and codifies the cause-and-prejudice test as the prerequisite to obtaining such relief. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2020).

2025Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381, 389 (2001). “[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acts as a bar to a subsequent suit between the parties involving the same cause of action.” Village of Bartonville v. Lopez, 2017 IL 120643 , ¶ 49.

2022“For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three requirements must be satisfied: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of causes of action; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies.” Id. at 1041-42 (citing Nowak, 197 Ill. 2d at 390 ).

2017People v. Neal, 142 Ill. 2d 140, 146 (1990). ¶ 41 Successive postconviction petitions are disfavored under the Act.

1994(Neal, 142 Ill. 2d at 148 .) Additionally, adopting defendant’s claim that á petitioner may avoid application of the res judicata doctrine by claiming that an issue was incorrectly decided in the direct appeal would eviscerate the res judicata doctrine’s application to post-conviction proceedings.

2025More precisely, the supreme court has held, “[I]ssues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered waived.” People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 233 (2004). ¶ 65 Defendant counters with the holding in People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 , ¶ 47: “Procedural default does not *** preclude a defendant from raising an issue on collateral review that depended upon facts not found in the record.” ¶ 66 The holding in Veach applies to the present case.

2023People v. Whitehead, 169 Ill. 2d 355, 371 (1996); People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 232-33 (2004). “[A] defendant cannot obtain relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act by rephrasing previously addressed issues in constitutional terms.” People v. Franklin, 167 Ill. 2d 1, 23 (1995). ¶ 42 Therefore, in the present case, defendant is asking this court for leave to file a highly disfavored successive postconviction petition to revisit a constitutional issue - 13 - that was decided on direct appeal and, therefore, is barred by the res judicata doctrine.

2025The doctrine of res judicata holds that “a final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.” Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 484, 490 (1993).

2024“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of -11- No. 1-23-1312 competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.” Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 484, 490 (1993).

2020As such, we must reject defendant’s claim that he raised a genuine issue of material fact that precluded an award of partial summary judgment in favor of the Ginger Creek plaintiffs. ¶ 22 Defendant’s next contends that it was improper for the circuit court to enter a final and appealable monetary judgment in favor of the Ginger Creek plaintiffs for the outstanding amount of the Sangamon County judgment, while also providing in its order that “[e]ntry of this judgment shall not bar any claim by Plaintiffs for rent and expenses accruing after September 24, 2015.” Plaintiff contends that the “tri

2017We therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which denied the appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as it relates solely to the issue of rescission. ¶ 20 The appellant has expressed concern that, if this court affirms the circuit court, he would be barred under res judicata from seeking to enforce the “contract.” “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction bars any subsequent actions between the same parties or their privies on the same cause

2020People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999). ¶ 14 In general, a defendant may file only one postconviction petition in any particular criminal case. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2016); People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595 , ¶ 14.

2011Accordingly, the scope of the proceedings is limited; “[a]ny issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted [citation], and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata [citation].” West, 187 Ill. 2d at 425 .

2024See Village of Bartonville v. Lopez, 2017 IL 120643, ¶ 48 (“[T]he right to pursue an arbitration action may be limited by the effect of the res judicata doctrine. *** [I]f the arbitration action involves issues previously reached; arbitration is barred notwithstanding the parties’ contractual rights to bring such actions.” (citing Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. v. Ambuehl, 309 Ill.

2024Given that “few rules are more essential or more firmly embedded in our jurisprudence than that of res judicata” (id. ¶ 49), we do not see a compelling reason to forbid its application in this case. - 11 - No. 1-24-0613 ¶ 23 Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction acts as a bar to a subsequent suit between the parties involving the same cause of action.” Id. (citing River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 302 (1998)).

2020“Thus, issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred 23 No. 1-17-0028 from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were not, are considered waived.” People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456 (2002) (citing Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502-03 ).

2019“Thus, issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata; issues that could have been raised, but were - 22 - No. 1-17-0150 not, are considered waived.” People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456 (2002) (citing Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502-03 ).

2026See People v. Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 42 (“[D]efendant is asking this court for leave to file a highly disfavored successive postconviction petition to revisit a constitutional issue that was decided on direct appeal and, therefore, is barred by the res judicata doctrine.”). ¶ 30 But principles of fundamental fairness allow courts to relax the effect of the res judicata doctrine.

2025Pursuant to section 122-1(f) of the Act, to obtain leave, the petitioner must demonstrate: (1) cause by identifying an objective factor that impeded his ability to raise the specific claim during his initial postconviction proceedings; and (2) prejudice stemming from that failure by demonstrating that the claim not raised in his initial postconviction proceedings so 10 No. 1-23-1929 infected the resulting conviction or sentence that it violated due process. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018); see also Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 462 . ¶ 28 “Both elements of the test must be met for a defendant t

2021Res Judicata, Claim-Splitting, and Statute of Limitations ¶ 53 Defendants next argue that the trial court should have dismissed plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint where Toushin’s claims were (1) res judicata, (2) barred by the rule against claim- splitting, and (3) adjudicated in an earlier case. ¶ 54 “The doctrine of res judicata provides that ‘a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause

1996Furthermore, "[t]he doctrine of res judicata provides that 'a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Housing Authority v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, 101 Ill. 2d 246, 251 (1984), quoting People v. Kidd, 398 Ill. 405, 408 (1947).

2024Nevertheless, the State is correct that this issue is partially precluded, though the relevant doctrines are actually forfeiture and res judicata: “[W]here a petitioner has previously taken an appeal from a judgment of conviction, the ensuing judgment of the reviewing court will bar, under the doctrine of res judicata, postconviction review of all issues actually decided by the reviewing court, and any other claims that could have been presented to the reviewing court will be deemed waived.” People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 21 .

2023Nevertheless, the -4- 2023 IL App (2d) 210393-U State is correct that this issue is partially precluded, though the relevant doctrines are actually forfeiture and res judicata: “[W]here a petitioner has previously taken an appeal from a judgment of conviction, the ensuing judgment of the reviewing court will bar, under the doctrine of res judicata, postconviction review of all issues actually decided by the reviewing court, and any other claims that could have been presented to the reviewing court will be deemed waived.” People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711, ¶ 21 .

2020Consequently, “any issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, are procedurally defaulted and any issues which have previously been decided by a reviewing court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id.

2020If defendant in the present case had taken a direct appeal, he might well have been restricted, in this subsequent postconviction proceeding, by the doctrines of -8- procedural forfeiture and res judicata. “[A]ny issues which could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, [would be] procedurally defaulted[,] and any issues which ha[d] previously been decided by a reviewing court [would be] barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177, 183 (2005).