res judicata doctrine in Illinois

2025Specifically, “[u]nder 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.” Lane, 394 Ill. App. 3d at 329 (citing Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 334 (1996)).

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“A plaintiff who splits his claims *** and [refiles] part of an action after a final judgment has been entered on another part of the case subjects himself to a res judicata defense.” Hudson, 228 Ill. 2d at 473 . ¶ 32 McHugh concedes that his Ethics Act claim was split between the federal and state courts.

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.

2026Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 458 (issues that were adjudicated on direct appeal—or in a previous collateral proceeding—are barred by the doctrine of res judicata). ¶ 17 In his response to OSAD’s motion to withdraw, defendant suggests that in the motion he attempted to raise new allegations of unfitness, arguing, in essence, that “personality disorder” is separate from other intellectual disabilities, and thus his new claims are more broad than his previous unfitness claims.

2026Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 458 (issues that were adjudicated on direct appeal—or in a previous collateral proceeding—are barred by the doctrine of res judicata).

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)).

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 .

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)).

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)).

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 .

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)).

2026See People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319, 328 (2009) (“ ‘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.’ ” (quoting People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 502 (2002))).

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).

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

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

2026Under the doctrine of res judicata, a cause of action is barred if “(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.” Nowak, 197 Ill. 2d at 390 .

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.

2022McKee, 2017 IL App (3d) 140881, ¶ 34 ; see, e.g., People v. Davis, 6 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 13 (“issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from consideration by the doctrine of res judicata”).

2019People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006). “[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 forfeited.” People v. Davis, 2014 IL 115595, ¶ 13 (citing People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 , 328 (2009)). ¶ 14 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides three stages to adjudicate postconviction petitions.

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.

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- 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).

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.

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 - ¶ 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)).

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. App. 3d 101, 107 (1999))).

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.

2026People v. Montanez, 2023 IL 128740, ¶ 104 . - 16 - ¶ 51 The effect of the res judicata doctrine may be relaxed only if defendant satisfies the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test, i.e., establish the existence of an objective factor, “external to the defense,” that “impeded the defendant’s ability to raise a specific claim at the initial postconviction proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) Clark, 2023 IL 127273, ¶ 60 . ¶ 52 Based on our review of defendant’s successive petition and the record before us, we conclude that defendant cannot establish cause.

2020See Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 387 Ill. App. 3d 887, 890 (2009) (doctrine of res judicata will not be applied where it would create inequitable and unjust results).

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

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 .

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 o

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).

2020“Thus, issues that were raised and decided on direct appeal are barred 23 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 - not, are considered waived.” People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 456 (2002) (citing Towns, 182 Ill. 2d at 502-03 ).

2011Our supreme court has held that the Taylor rule's jurisdictional bar "resembles the doctrine of res judicata " in that it is "not limited to issues actually considered, but also covers any issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceeding." (Emphasis added.) Holmes, 235 Ill.2d at 67, 335 Ill.Dec. 599 , 919 N.E.2d 318 ; see also Williams, 138 Ill.2d at 390-91 , 150 Ill.Dec. 498 , 563 N.E.2d 385 ("[N]one of our Taylor line of cases limited *705 the Taylor rule only to those subsidiary issues that may actually have been considered * * *. * * * Each of the Taylor line of cases speaks of

2011Our supreme court has held that the Taylor rule’s jurisdictional bar “resembles the doctrine of res judicata” in that it is “not limited to issues actually considered, but also covers any issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) Holmes, 235 Ill. 2d at 67 ; see also Williams, 138 Ill. 2d at 390-91 (“[N]one of our Taylor line of cases limited the Taylor rule only to those subsidiary issues that may actually have been considered ***. *** Each of the Taylor line of cases speaks of an order itself, not merely of issues upon which the order may or may not have

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- 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).