collateral estoppel doctrine in Florida

2023See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003) (“Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply.”); Ali v. State, 911 So. 2d 164, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he trial court correctly denied the defendant’s claim regarding lack of notice as this claim may not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 . . . .”). 2

2019“There is no prohibition to the filing of successive rule 3.800(a) motions so long as the merits of the issue presented have not previously been addressed . . . .” Perez v. State, 20 So. 3d 440, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003) (footnote omitted) (“Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply.”).

2018To be in privity with a party to an earlier lawsuit, "one must have an interest in the action such that she will be bound by the final judgment as if she were a party." Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961, 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); see also Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So. 2d 917, 920 (Fla. 1995) (applying the same test in the context of the related doctrine of collateral estoppel).

2016The related doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as' estoppel by judgment or issue preclusion, “bars ‘the parties from litigating in the second suit issues— that is to say points and questions — common to both causes of action and which were actually adjudicated in the prior litigation.’ ” Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla.1995)).

2019The doctrine of collateral estoppel “is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 445 (1970).

2017The doctrine of collateral estoppel “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970).

2024In Zikofsky v. Marketing 10, Inc., 904 So. 2d 520, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), we described collateral estoppel: The doctrine of collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion), also referred to as estoppel by judgment and estoppel by matter of record, is related to res judicata, but it is a different concept.

2024Collateral Estoppel “[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, ‘bars relitigation of the same issue between the same parties which has already been determined by a valid judgment,’ even where the present and former cause of action are not the same.” Kowallek v. Lee Rehm, 183 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Zikofsky v. Mktg. 10, Inc., 904 So. 2d 520, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); see also Aronowitz, 174 So. 3d at 1066 (citation omitted) (“Collateral estoppel applies to specific issues ‘that were actually litigated and decided in the former suit.’”).

2018This has opened the door for foreseeability 1 “Res judicata is a judicial doctrine used to bar parties from relitigating claims previously decided by a final adjudication on the merits.” W & W Lumber of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Town & Country Builders, Inc., 35 So. 3d 79 , 82–83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 2 “For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply to bar relitigation of an issue, five elements must be present: ‘(1) an identical issue must have been presented in the prior proceedings; (2) the issue must have been a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (3) there must have been a

2016The related doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as' estoppel by judgment or issue preclusion, “bars ‘the parties from litigating in the second suit issues— that is to say points and questions — common to both causes of action and which were actually adjudicated in the prior litigation.’ ” Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla.1995)).

2017For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue “sought to be foreclosed must necessarily have been determined in the defendant's favor; it is not sufficient that the fact might have been determined in the first trial.” State v. Short, 513 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (emphasis added); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1983) (holding that pertinent question when dealing with claim of collateral estoppel is whether factual issue was actually decided by prior jury in reaching its verdict); State v. Strong, 593 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding collateral estoppe

2015For the doctrine to apply, “the fact sought to be foreclosed must necessarily have been determined in the defendant’s favor; it is not sufficient that the fact might have been determined in the first trial.” Id. (citing United States v. Irvin, 787 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir.1986)) (emphasis added); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1983) (holding that the pertinent question when dealing with a claim of collateral estoppel is whether the factual issue was actually decided by the prior jury in reaching its verdict); State v. Strong, 593 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding tha

2022“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion and estoppel by judgment, ‘bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties in connection with a different cause of action.’” Criner v. State, 138 So. 3d 557, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004)).

2006Analysis "The doctrine of collateral estoppel — which is also known as issue preclusion and estoppel by judgment — `bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties in connection with a different cause of action.'" Cook v. State, 921 So.2d 631, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004)) (emphasis added).

2015For the doctrine to apply, “the fact sought to be foreclosed must necessarily have been determined in the defendant’s favor; it is not sufficient that the fact might have been determined in the first trial.” Id. (citing United States v. Irvin, 787 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir.1986)) (emphasis added); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla.1983) (holding that the pertinent question when dealing with a claim of collateral estoppel is whether the factual issue was actually decided by the prior jury in reaching its verdict); State v. Strong, 593 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding tha

1994This court succinctly explained the application of collateral estoppel in State v. Strong, 593 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla. 1992): From the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy in the United States Constitution there has evolved the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which means that, when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit... .

1995Trucking Employees of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano 450 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 1984), modified *698 on other grounds by Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1989).

1995"A corollary to the doctrine of collateral estoppel is the doctrine of mutuality of parties which holds that strangers to a prior litigation — those who were neither parties nor in privity with a party — are not bound by the results of that litigation." Trucking Employees of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla. 1984).

2023Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”). 2

2023Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”). 2

2003Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply. [1] We have explained that doctrine as follows: "Collateral estoppel is a judicial doctrine which in general terms prevents identical parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been decided." Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. B.J.M., 656 So.2d 906, 910 (Fla.1995).

2001See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. B.J.M., 656 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1995); Acadia Partners, L.P. v. Tompkins, 759 So.2d 732, 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

2016See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003) (“In barring the filing of successive repetitive 3.800 motions ... courts essentially have applied collateral estoppel principles.”); see also Harvey v. State, 78 So.3d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“The collateral estoppel bar, however, only applies when the identical issue is raised in a prior motion and the issue is decided on the merits.”); accord Garcia v. State, 69 So.3d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Pleasure v. State, 931 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

2016See Pleasure, 931 So.2d at 1002 (“For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply, the prior decision must have been on the merits.”); Williams v. State, 868 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“[T]he trial court erred in denying the appellant’s claim as being barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel as it is not clear from the record before this Court that the instant claim has ever been decided on the merits.”).

2025The final summary judgment entered in the [prior] action . . . . constitutes a final determination of the issues.”); Pearce, 219 So. 3d at 966-67 (“‘[I]f a matter has already been decided [and] the petitioner has already had his or her day in court . . . that matter generally will not be reexamined again in any court’ . . . .

2018To be in privity with a party to an earlier lawsuit, "one must have an interest in the action such that she will be bound by the final judgment as if she were a party." Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961, 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); see also Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So. 2d 917, 920 (Fla. 1995) (applying the same test in the context of the related doctrine of collateral estoppel).

2023Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”). 2

2023Necessarily, ‘the particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.’” (quoting Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))); Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[Section 768.72, Florida Statutes] requires the trial court to act as a gatekeeper and precludes a claim for punitive damages where there is no reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery.”). 2

2022“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion and estoppel by judgment, ‘bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties in connection with a different cause of action.’” Criner v. State, 138 So. 3d 557, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004)).

2018This has opened the door for foreseeability 1 “Res judicata is a judicial doctrine used to bar parties from relitigating claims previously decided by a final adjudication on the merits.” W & W Lumber of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Town & Country Builders, Inc., 35 So. 3d 79 , 82–83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 2 “For the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply to bar relitigation of an issue, five elements must be present: ‘(1) an identical issue must have been presented in the prior proceedings; (2) the issue must have been a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (3) there must have been a

2017For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue “sought to be foreclosed must necessarily have been determined in the defendant's favor; it is not sufficient that the fact might have been determined in the first trial.” State v. Short, 513 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (emphasis added); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1983) (holding that pertinent question when dealing with claim of collateral estoppel is whether factual issue was actually decided by prior jury in reaching its verdict); State v. Strong, 593 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding collateral estoppe

2017For collateral estoppel to apply, the issue “sought to be foreclosed must necessarily have been determined in the defendant’s favor; it is not sufficient that the fact might have been determined in the first trial.” State v. Short, 513 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (emphasis added); see also Gragg v. State, 429 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 1983) (holding that pertinent question when dealing with claim of collateral estop-pel is whether factual issue was actually decided by prior jury in reaching its verdict); State v. Strong, 593 So.2d 1065 , 1067 *1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding collateral es

2008This doctrine bars relitigation of an issue when the following five factors are met: "(1) an identical issue must have been presented in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue must have been a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (3) there must have been a *1035 full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue; (4) the parties in the two proceedings must be identical; and (5) the issue[] must have been actually litigated." Goodman v. Aldrich & Ramsey Enterprises, Inc., 804 So.2d 544, 546-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

2005Goodman v. Aldrich & Ramsey Enters., Inc., 804 So.2d 544, 546-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982) ("Issue Preclusion—General Rule[:] When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim."). [1] The requirement of Florida law that the prior determination of an issue be based on full and fair litigation is similar to the acknowledgement in Resta

2006See Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Orange Park, 399 So.2d 88, 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (suggesting that a final adjudication of parties' rights, and a final disposal of a case, provide the foundation for a collateral estoppel claim).

2006See Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Orange Park, 399 So.2d 88, 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (suggesting that a final adjudication of parties’ rights, and a final disposal of a case, provide the foundation for a collateral estoppel claim).

2000It said the sole exception to the rule was articulated in Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209 (Fla.1989).

1999We agree with the policy reasons articulated in Steele in support of this requirement. *1250 Significantly, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the standards for "`ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings and for legal malpractice in civil proceedings are equivalent for the purposes of application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.'" Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 214 (Fla.1989) (quoting Knoblauch v. Kenyon, 163 Mich.App. 712 , 415 N.W.2d 286, 289 (1987)); see also McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C.Cir.1980).

2013In order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply, “an identical issue must have been presented in the prior proceeding, the issue must have been a critical and necessary part of the prior determination, there must have been a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue, and the issue must have been actually litigated.” Id.

2011Bd., 927 So.2d 224, 226-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (discussing the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also referred to as issue preclusion and estoppel by judgment); see also Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105-08 (Fla.2001) (applying the doctrine of law of the case); Specialty Rests.

2006"The doctrine thus comes into play in a case when, in an earlier proceeding involving a different cause of action, the `same parties' litigated the `same issues' that are presented once again for decision." Id. "`[T]he judgment in the first suit ... estops the parties from litigating in the second suit issues — that is to say points and questions — common to both causes of action and which were actually adjudicated in the prior litigation.'" Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla.1995) (quoting Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40, 44 (Fla.1952)).

1982Gordon v. Gordon, supra; Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County, supra. The only issue determined in the prior case was that Miley Miers was not liable in his individual capacity because he was not a party to the contract.

2003Because differing standards are applicable, “[a]cquittal on the substantive offense is not a collateral estoppel bar to revocation of probation on the same offense.” Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), citing Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975).

2000See Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); White v. State, 332 So.2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

2024Cf. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it.”); see also Dade Cnty.

2024Collateral Estoppel “[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, ‘bars relitigation of the same issue between the same parties which has already been determined by a valid judgment,’ even where the present and former cause of action are not the same.” Kowallek v. Lee Rehm, 183 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Zikofsky v. Mktg. 10, Inc., 904 So. 2d 520, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); see also Aronowitz, 174 So. 3d at 1066 (citation omitted) (“Collateral estoppel applies to specific issues ‘that were actually litigated and decided in the former suit.’”).

2024Collateral Estoppel “[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, ‘bars relitigation of the same issue between the same parties which has already been determined by a valid judgment,’ even where the present and former cause of action are not the same.” Kowallek v. Lee Rehm, 183 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Zikofsky v. Mktg. 10, Inc., 904 So. 2d 520, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); see also Aronowitz, 174 So. 3d at 1066 (citation omitted) (“Collateral estoppel applies to specific issues ‘that were actually litigated and decided in the former suit.’”).

2023See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003) (“Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply.”); Ali v. State, 911 So. 2d 164, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he trial court correctly denied the defendant’s claim regarding lack of notice as this claim may not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 . . . .”). 2

2022See Doe v. Baptist Primary Care, Inc., 177 So. 3d 669, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“A trial court’s decision is presumed correct, thus an appellant who presents no argument as to why a trial court’s ruling is incorrect on an issue has abandoned the issue.” (internal citations omitted)).

2022We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 337 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity from its assignor from case to case.