res judicata doctrine in Virginia

2024See, e.g., Funny Guy, 293 Va. at 143 (noting that in a res judicata analysis, “[d]etermining which claims should have been brought in earlier litigation largely depends on which claims could have been been brought” (quoting Kent Sinclair, Guide to Virginia Law & Equity Reform and Other Landmark Changes § 11.2, at 247 (2006))); id. at 148 (discussing the “could-have-litigated aspect” of res judicata); D’Ambrosio v. Wolf, 295 Va. 48 , 54 (2018) (discussing Rule 1:6(a) and noting that “parties may not ‘relitigat[e] . . . the same cause of action, or any part thereof which could have been litigate

2017See Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90 , 94, 101 S.Ct. 411 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) ("[R]es judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication."); Bill Greever Corp. v. Tazewell Nat'l Bank , 256 Va. 250 , 254, 504 S.E.2d 854 , 856-57 (1998) ("Courts have imposed a rule prohibiting claim-splitting based on public policy considerations similar to those underlying the doctrine of res judicata : avoiding a multiplicity of suits, protecting against vexat

2014Id.

2010We disagree. -3- “The doctrine of res judicata is applicable to decisions of deputy commissioners and the full commission.” Rusty’s Welding Serv., Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 128 , 510 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1999) (en banc) (citing K & L Trucking Co., Inc. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985)).

2024As with decisions from the judiciary, “the decisions of the Commission or its deputy commissioners from which no party seeks timely review are binding upon the Commission.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985). -6- To prove a res judicata defense, a party “must establish: (1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 81 (1994) (quoting Commonwealth ex rel.

2012Starbucks asserts that the award order was merely an administrative order recognizing claimant’s right to collect wage-loss benefits and that “[t]he substantive claim of [claimant’s] return to work was never litigated before the [cjommission on the merits.” As this Court has expressed before, “ ‘the relationship of the [cjommission to an award is that of a court to a judgment during the term at which it is rendered.’ ” Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation, 59 Va.App. 39, 47 , 716 S.E.2d 485, 488 (2011) (quoting K & L Trucking Co., Inc. v. Thurber, 1 Va.App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299,

1991Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va. App. 614, 621 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 790 (1989), we held that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the minor child’s right to a determination of paternity in a subsequent suit where the petitioner’s parents divorced and the decree asserted that there were no children born of the marriage.

1991Gray v. Johnson, 7 Va. App. 614, 621 , 376 S.E.2d 787, 790 (1989), we held that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the minor child’s right to a determination of paternity in a subsequent suit where the petitioner’s parents divorced and the decree asserted that there were no children born of the marriage.

2003City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220, 229 , 523 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2000).

2003City of Virginia Beach v. Harris, 259 Va. 220, 229 , 523 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2000).

2026And “the rule against claim-splitting” is “enforce[d]” through application of “the doctrine of res judicata.” Bill Greever Corp., 256 Va. at 254 .

2020Claim-splitting is prohibited “based on public policy considerations similar to those underlying the doctrine of res judicata: avoiding a multiplicity of suits, protecting against vexatious litigation, and avoiding the costs and expenses associated with numerous suits on the same cause of action.” Id.

2006The res judicata doctrine has four requirements: “‘(1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.’” Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (quoting Wright v. Castles, 232 Va. 218, 222 , 349 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1986)).

2006The res judicata doctrine has four requirements: “‘(1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.’” Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (quoting Wright v. Castles, 232 Va. 218, 222 , 349 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1986)).

2021Res Judicata Wife also argues that the doctrine of res judicata barred the J&DR court from hearing husband’s motion for overage payments because it “arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence” as his previous motion to amend spousal support. -4- “Res judicata and collateral estoppel, though similar, are distinct legal doctrines.” CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 702, 709 (2000).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2006The res judicata doctrine has four requirements: “‘(1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.’” Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (quoting Wright v. Castles, 232 Va. 218, 222 , 349 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1986)).

2006The res judicata doctrine has four requirements: “‘(1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.’” Smith v. Ware, 244 Va. 374, 376 , 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992) (quoting Wright v. Castles, 232 Va. 218, 222 , 349 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1986)).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

2004CDM Enterprises, Inc. v. Manufactured Housing Board, 32 Va.App. 702, 709 , 530 S.E.2d 441, 444 (2000) (citations omitted). “[F]our preclusionary effects [are] embraced by the doctrine of res judicata: (1) res judicata-bar, (2) merger, (3) direct estoppel, and (4) collateral estoppel.” Dotson v. Harman, 232 Va. 402, 405 , 350 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1986).

1999See Cook v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 215 Va. 599 , 212 S.E.2d 263 (1975). 3 Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision that the appellant’s claim is not barred under the principles of res judicata.

1999See Cook v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 215 Va. 599 , 212 S.E.2d 263 (1975). 3 Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision that the appellant’s claim is not barred under the principles of res judicata.

2024As with decisions from the judiciary, “the decisions of the Commission or its deputy commissioners from which no party seeks timely review are binding upon the Commission.” K & L Trucking Co. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 (1985). -6- To prove a res judicata defense, a party “must establish: (1) identity of the remedies sought; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 81 (1994) (quoting Commonwealth ex rel.

2001K & L Trucking - 6 - Co., Inc. v. Thurber, 1 Va. App. 213, 219 , 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). "'Res judicata precludes the re-litigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached.'" Rusty's Welding Service, Inc. v. Gibson, 29 Va. App. 119, 128 , 510 S.E.2d 255, 259 (1999) (quoting Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 19 Va. App. 77, 81 , 448 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1994)).

2022Where we have previously balanced res judicata against competing policy considerations, those limits to res judicata apply -5- precluded by res judicata include those ‘made or tendered by the pleadings,’ as well as those ‘incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Lofton Ridge, LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry., 268 Va. 377, 381 (2004)).

2022Where we have previously balanced res judicata against competing policy considerations, those limits to res judicata apply -5- precluded by res judicata include those ‘made or tendered by the pleadings,’ as well as those ‘incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Lofton Ridge, LLC v. Norfolk S. Ry., 268 Va. 377, 381 (2004)).

2003The broader doctrine of res judicata "' precludes [the] relitigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent jurisdiction.'" Neff v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 13, 18 , 569 S.E.2d 72, 74 (2002) (citation omitted).

2003The broader doctrine of res judicata "' precludes [the] relitigation of a claim or issue once a final determination on the merits has been reached by a court of competent jurisdiction.'" Neff v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 13, 18 , 569 S.E.2d 72, 74 (2002) (citation omitted).

2011He argues that Martin failed to meet the requirements set forth in State Water Control Board v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 261 Va. 209, 214 , 542 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2001).

2011He argues that Martin failed to meet the requirements set forth in State Water Control Board v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 261 Va. 209, 214 , 542 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2001).

2006Thereafter, absent fraud or mistake, the doctrine of res judicata bars further litigation of that claim.” AMP, Inc. v. Ruebush, 10 Va. App. 270, 274 , 391 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1990).

2006Thereafter, absent fraud or mistake, the doctrine of res judicata bars further litigation of that claim.” AMP, Inc. v. Ruebush, 10 Va. App. 270, 274 , 391 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1990).

1988It is immaterial that the full extent of Saunders' contractual obligations was not litigated and determined in the first suit; the res judicata bar "extends to every other matter which the parties might have litigated." Jones, 168 Va. at 291 , 191 S.E. at 610 .

1988It is immaterial that the full extent of Saunders' contractual obligations was not litigated and determined in the first suit; the res judicata bar "extends to every other matter which the parties might have litigated." Jones, 168 Va. at 291 , 191 S.E. at 610 .

2026Rule 1:6(a); see also Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235, 247-48 (2015) (explaining that applying a res- judicata bar requires proof that (1) the claim was previously “decided on the merits by a final judgment,” (2) both the past and current actions are between the same parties, and (3) the subsequent action “involve[d] the same conduct, transaction[,] or occurrence”).

2018Lee , 290 Va. at 246 , 776 S.E.2d at 804 .

2026Same Conduct, Transaction, or Occurrence The Supreme Court, in deciding Funny Guy, 293 Va. at 154-55 , provided a framework for determining whether claims arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence for purposes of a res judicata analysis.

2026The Supreme Court in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017), comprehensively surveyed the origins and parameters of the res judicata doctrine, now embodied in Rule 1:6.

2022Claim preclusion, also referred to as “merger” or “bar,” “treats unasserted claims as being subsumed into the disposition of related, previously adjudicated, claims arising out of the same cause of action.” Brock, 59 Va. App. at 45 .1 “Claims 1 Rule 1:6 codified the common law doctrine of res judicata.

2022Claim preclusion, also referred to as “merger” or “bar,” “treats unasserted claims as being subsumed into the disposition of related, previously adjudicated, claims arising out of the same cause of action.” Brock, 59 Va. App. at 45 .1 “Claims 1 Rule 1:6 codified the common law doctrine of res judicata.

2003In contrast, the decision in Allstar Towing had a bearing on our application of the res judicata bar in Flora, Flora & Montague, Inc. v. Saunders, 235 Va. 306 , 367 S.E.2d 493 (1988), because the law-equity distinction was not a factor.

2003In contrast, the decision in Allstar Towing had a bearing on our application of the res judicata bar in Flora, Flora & Montague, Inc. v. Saunders, 235 Va. 306 , 367 S.E.2d 493 (1988), because the law-equity distinction was not a factor.

2009Res Judicata The Supreme Court eviscerated the doctrine of res judicata in Davis v. Marshall Homes, 265 Va. 159 , 576 S.E.2d 504 (2003).

2009Res Judicata The Supreme Court eviscerated the doctrine of res judicata in Davis v. Marshall Homes, 265 Va. 159 , 576 S.E.2d 504 (2003).

2007First, the derivative liability principle recited by Pratt is applied when a verdict or other finding that the employee was not negligent is the basis for exoneration of the employer in the same case, see, e.g., Roughton, 236 Va. at 156 -57 , 372 S.E.2d at 150 ; Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542 , 549, 172 S.E.2d 751 , 757 (1970); Whitfield v. Whittaker Mem'l Hosp., 210 Va. 176 , 183, 169 S.E.2d 563 , 568 (1969); Virginia State Fair Ass'n v. Burton, 182 Va. 365 , 368, 28 S.E.2d 716 , 717-18 *304 (1944), or in subsequent litigation through the application of the res judicata bar, see, e.g., Ward v.

2007First, the derivative liability principle recited by Pratt is applied when a verdict or other finding that the employee was not negligent is the basis for exoneration of the employer in the same case, see, e.g., Roughton, 236 Va. at 156 -57 , 372 S.E.2d at 150 ; Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542 , 549, 172 S.E.2d 751 , 757 (1970); Whitfield v. Whittaker Mem'l Hosp., 210 Va. 176 , 183, 169 S.E.2d 563 , 568 (1969); Virginia State Fair Ass'n v. Burton, 182 Va. 365 , 368, 28 S.E.2d 716 , 717-18 *304 (1944), or in subsequent litigation through the application of the res judicata bar, see, e.g., Ward v.

2003See Ferebee v. Hungate, 192 Va. 32, 36 , 63 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1951); Mowry v. City of Virginia Beach, 198 Va. 205, 211 , 93 S.E.2d 323, 327 (1956); Wright v. Castles, 232 Va. 218, 222 , 349 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1986); Smith v. Ware, 244, Va. 374, 376, 421 S.E.2d 444, 445 (1992).

1992Several claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata Res judicata precludes re-litigation of “the same cause of action, or any parts thereof which could have been litigated, between the same parties and their privies.” Bates v. Devers, 214 Va. 667 (1974), “For res judicata to apply, four things must occur: (1) identity in the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons, and of parties to the action; (4) identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Jacob, 15 Va. Cir. 110, 116 (1988), citing Mowry v. Cit

2025“It would be manifestly unfair, therefore, to hold that a judgment which no longer is final could operate as a bar to the prosecution of the present case.” Faison, 243 Va. at 419 (holding that an order that had been -9- reversed and remanded on appeal could not support a res judicata claim).

1992A judgment, to be relied upon for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, must be final, id. at 419 , 417 S.E.2d at 304 , and a judgment which is being appealed is not final for res judicata purposes, id., 417 S.E.2d at 305 .

2024See, e.g., Funny Guy, 293 Va. at 143 (noting that in a res judicata analysis, “[d]etermining which claims should have been brought in earlier litigation largely depends on which claims could have been been brought” (quoting Kent Sinclair, Guide to Virginia Law & Equity Reform and Other Landmark Changes § 11.2, at 247 (2006))); id. at 148 (discussing the “could-have-litigated aspect” of res judicata); D’Ambrosio v. Wolf, 295 Va. 48 , 54 (2018) (discussing Rule 1:6(a) and noting that “parties may not ‘relitigat[e] . . . the same cause of action, or any part thereof which could have been litigate

1927We may refer, among the later cases, to Harris v. Sparrow, 146 Va. 747 , 132 S. E. 694 ; Brunner v. Cook, 134 Va. 266 , 114 S. E. 650 ; Smith v. Holland, 124 Va. 663 , 98 S. E. 676 ; Ivey v. Lewis, 133 Va. 122 , 112 S. E. 712 ; American Surety Co. v. White, 142 Va. 7 , 127 S. E. 178 ; City of Richmond v. Davis, 135 Va. 319 , 116 S. E. 492 , and Craig v. Craig, 118 Va. 284 , 87 S. E. 727 .

1955In the present suit Ames and Webb, Inc., contends that it and Byrum, although on the same side of the versus in the Mills action, were in fact adverse parties in that action, and that the adjudication there made that Byrum was negligent renders that question res judicata and bars him from any recovery in this suit against Ames and Webb, Inc. Byrum on the other hand contends that the parties and the causes of action in the two cases are not the same and that the issues are between different parties and rest upon different rules of law. *600 In Ferebee v. Hungate, 192 Va. 32, 36 , 63 S. E. (2d)

1955In the present suit Ames and Webb, Inc., contends that it and Byrum, although on the same side of the versus in the Mills action, were in fact adverse parties in that action, and that the adjudication there made that Byrum was negligent renders that question res judicata and bars him from any recovery in this suit against Ames and Webb, Inc. Byrum on the other hand contends that the parties and the causes of action in the two cases are not the same and that the issues are between different parties and rest upon different rules of law. *600 In Ferebee v. Hungate, 192 Va. 32, 36 , 63 S. E. (2d)