res judicata doctrine in North Carolina

2025Under the doctrine of res judicata, which is also known as “claim preclusion,” “a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.” Whitacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004).

2025Under the doctrine of res judicata, which is also known as “claim preclusion,” “a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.” Whitacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004).

2025McInnis & Assocs., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421 , 427–28 (1986).

2025McInnis & Assocs., Inc. v. Hall, 318 N.C. 421 , 427–28 (1986).

2025Pursuant to the “‘notice theory of pleading’ a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought[.]” Id. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 165 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 165–

2025Pursuant to the “‘notice theory of pleading’ a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought[.]” Id. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 165 (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. at 102 , 176 S.E.2d at 165–

2021App. 246 , 252, 767 S.E.2d 615 , 620 (2014) (“Under notice pleading, a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought.”) (quoting Wake Cty. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 235 N.C.

2020App. 246 , 252, 767 S.E.2d 615 , 620 (2014) (“Under notice pleading, a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought.”) (quoting Wake Cty. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 235 N.C.

2024Tucker v. Frinzi, 344 N.C. 411, 413 , 474 S.E.2d 127, 128 (1996)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata or ‘claim preclusion,’ a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.”).

2024Tucker v. Frinzi, 344 N.C. 411, 413 , 474 S.E.2d 127, 128 (1996)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata or ‘claim preclusion,’ a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.”).

2022Dismissal of a claim is proper “(1) when the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports plaintiff’s claim; (2) when the complaint reveals on its face the absence of fact sufficient to make a good claim; [or] (3) when some fact disclosed in the complaint necessarily defeats the plaintiff’s claim.” Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 278 (1985). “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.” Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 103 (1970) (emph

2022Dismissal of a claim is proper “(1) when the [counterclaim] on its face reveals that no law supports [counter-claimant’s] claim; (2) when the [counterclaim] reveals on its face the absence of fact sufficient to make a good claim; [or] (3) when some fact disclosed in the [counterclaim] necessarily defeats the [counter-claimant’s] claim.” Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 278 (1985).

2019In Bockweg , after acknowledging that "the right to avoid the possibility of two trials on the same issues" can permit an immediate appeal, the Supreme Court held that rejection of a res judicata defense "may affect a substantial right, making the order immediately appealable." Id.

2016Under the doctrine of res judicata, "a final judgment on the merits in a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction precludes a second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them." Bockweg v. Anderson , 333 N.C. 486 , 491, 428 S.E.2d 157 , 161 (1993) (citation omitted).

2026See Williams, 217 N.C.

2019"Our standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' " In re Will of Jones , 362 N.C. 569 , 573, 669 S.E.2d 572 , 576 (2008) (quoting Forbis v. Neal , 361 N.C. 519 , 524, 649 S.E.2d 382 , 385 (2007) ). *81 "Under the doctrine of res judicata or 'claim preclusion,' a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their pr

2008Again, “[w]here the second action between two parties is upon the same claim, [the doctrine of res judicata allows] the prior judgment [to] serve[] as a bar to the relitigation of all matters that were or should have been adjudicated in the prior action.” Id. at 492 , 428 S.E.2d at 161 (emphasis added). “ ‘But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.’ ” King v. Grindst

2008Again, “[w]here the second action between two parties is upon the same claim, [the doctrine of res judicata allows] the prior judgment [to] serve[] as a bar to the relitigation of all matters that were or should have been adjudicated in the prior action.” Id. at 492 , 428 S.E.2d at 161 (emphasis added). “ ‘But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.’ ” King v. Grindst

2026“In order to successfully assert the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant must prove the following essential elements: (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) an identity of the causes of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies in the two suits.” Moody v. Able Outdoor, Inc., 169 N.C.

2023The defendant “point[ed] to a series of [decade-old] decisions made by this [C]ourt that, in its view, expressly adopted a bright-line rule that any order rejecting a res judicata defense is immediately appealable.” Id. at 18, 824 S.E.2d at 439 ; see Moody, 169 N.C.

2008In Caswell Realty, although the prior action was not decided on grounds of sovereign immunity, our Court held that “[t]he order of summary judgment... was a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of the doctrine of res judicata[.]” Id. at 721 , 496 S.E.2d at 611 ; see also Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C.

2008In Caswell Realty, although the prior action was not decided on grounds of sovereign immunity, our Court held that “[t]he order of summary judgment... was a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of the doctrine of res judicata[.]” Id. at 721 , 496 S.E.2d at 611 ; see also Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C.

2012Under the doctrine of res judicata: “Where a second action or proceeding is between the same parties as the first action or proceeding, the judgment in the former action or proceeding is con- *160 elusive in the latter not only as to all matters actually litigated and determined, but also as to all matters which could properly have been litigated and determined in the former action or proceeding.” Fickley v. Greystone Enterprises, Inc., 140 N.C.

2006Under the doctrine of res judicata: “Where a second action or proceeding is between the same parties as the first action or proceeding, the judgment in the former action or proceeding is conclusive in the latter not only as to all matters actually litigated and determined, but also as to all matters which could properly have been litigated and determined in the former action or proceeding.” Fickley v. Greystone Enters., Inc., 140 N.C.

2007Generally, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata applies where there are two actions involving the same parties and the same claims or demands; the doctrine of collateral estoppel operates where there are two actions involving the same parties, but where the second action arises from a different claim or demand.” Chrisalis Properties, Inc. v. Separate Quarters, Inc., 101 N.C.

1994See Chrisalis 101 N.C.App. at 88 , 398 S.E.2d at 633 ("Absent evidence raising an issue of mitigation of damages, plaintiff's damages for future rents could have been determined at the time of the summary ejectment proceeding.") Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, plaintiff's claims in the present action merged into the district court's judgment and plaintiff is barred from *98 subsequently raising the claims.

2005In order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be: "(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier lawsuit; (2) identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the later suit; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies in both suits." Culler v. Hamlett, 148 N.C.App. 389, 392 , 559 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2002); see also State ex rel.

2005In order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be: "(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier lawsuit; (2) identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the later suit; and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies in both suits." Culler v. Hamlett, 148 N.C.App. 389, 392 , 559 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2002); see also State ex rel.

2023App. at 83 , 609 S.E.2d at 261 (2005); see also Wilson, 136 N.C.

2000App. 500, 502 , 524 S.E.2d 812, 813 (2000) (the doctrine of res judicata “entirely bars an identical party or those in privity from relitigating a second action identical to the first where a court of competent jurisdiction has already rendered a final judgment on the merits”); Shore v. Brown, 324 N.C. 427, 428 , 378 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1989) (“If the granting of summary judgment can be sustained on any grounds, it should be affirmed on appeal.”).

2021Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337 , 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009) (citation omitted). ¶ 11 “Under the doctrine of res judicata or ‘claim preclusion,’ a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.” Whitacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (citation omitted).

2021Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337 , 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009) (citation omitted). ¶ 11 “Under the doctrine of res judicata or ‘claim preclusion,’ a final judgment on the merits in one action precludes a second suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties or their privies.” Whitacre P’ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 15 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2004) (citation omitted).

2021App. 223, 227 , 609 S.E.2d 478, 481 (2005) (“As the [plaintiffs’] claims were not compulsory counterclaims in the previous action, they are not now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.”).

2021App. 223, 227 , 609 S.E.2d 478, 481 (2005) (“As the [plaintiffs’] claims were not compulsory counterclaims in the previous action, they are not now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.”).

2016Instead, plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint in state court over one year after the bankruptcy court's order. " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction precludes a second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them.' " Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C.App. 305 , 307, 528 S.E.2d 51 , 53 (quoting Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486 , 491, 428 S.E.2d 157 , 161 (1993) ), aff'd, 352 N.C. 666 , 535 S.E.2d 356 (2000). "[I]t is well settled in this State that '[a] dismissal und

2016Instead, plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint in state court over one year after the bankruptcy court's order. " 'Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction precludes a second suit involving the same claim between the same parties or those in privity with them.' " Green v. Dixon, 137 N.C.App. 305 , 307, 528 S.E.2d 51 , 53 (quoting Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486 , 491, 428 S.E.2d 157 , 161 (1993) ), aff'd, 352 N.C. 666 , 535 S.E.2d 356 (2000). "[I]t is well settled in this State that '[a] dismissal und

2014School Bd., 170 N.C.

2009App. 650, 654 , 614 S.E.2d 319, 322 (2005) (quoting Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 491 , 428 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1993)). [T]o successfully assert the doctrine of res judicata, a [party] must prove the following essential elements: (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) an identity of the causes of action in both the earlier and the later suit, and (3) an identity of the parties or their privies in the two suits.

1983In order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be “a final judgment or decree, necessarily determining a fact, question or right in issue, rendered by a court of record and of competent jurisdiction, and ... a later suit involving an issue as to the identical fact, question or right theretofore determined, and involving identical parties or parties in privity with a party or parties to the prior suit.” (Citations omitted.) King v. Grindstaff, 284 N.C. 348, 355 , 200 S.E. 2d 799, 805 (1973), quoting Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520 , 124 S.E. 2d 574 (1962).

1983In order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be “a final judgment or decree, necessarily determining a fact, question or right in issue, rendered by a court of record and of competent jurisdiction, and ... a later suit involving an issue as to the identical fact, question or right theretofore determined, and involving identical parties or parties in privity with a party or parties to the prior suit.” (Citations omitted.) King v. Grindstaff, 284 N.C. 348, 355 , 200 S.E. 2d 799, 805 (1973), quoting Masters v. Dunstan, 256 N.C. 520 , 124 S.E. 2d 574 (1962).

2025Hedrick v. Whitener, 100 N.C.

1995On appeal, our Court first noted that “since a civil action filed by the County against the defendant is not an attempt to relitigate the same claim litigated in the previous action, this appeal presents a question of collateral estoppel, not res judicata.” Id. at 74-75, 394 S.E.2d at 265 .

2023App. at 19 , 824 S.E.2d at 439 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction where the crux of the appellant’s arguments—that a res- judicata defense always creates a risk of inconsistent verdicts, obviating the need for case-by-case applications of the substantial-right test—was, “in effect, simply an assertion that [the appellant] should not be forced to endure the burden of a trial when [it] ha[s] asserted a defense on which [it] believe[s] [it] will prevail on appeal”).

2023The defendant “point[ed] to a series of [decade-old] decisions made by this [C]ourt that, in its view, expressly adopted a bright-line rule that any order rejecting a res judicata defense is immediately appealable.” Id. at 18, 824 S.E.2d at 439 ; see Moody, 169 N.C.