relitigation claim in Nebraska

2023Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014).

2023Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014).

2025Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 314 Neb. 889 , 994 N.W.2d 35 (2023), modified on denial of rehear- ing 315 Neb. 413 , 996 N.W.2d 629 .

2025Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 314 Neb. 889 , 994 N.W.2d 35 (2023), modified on denial of rehear- ing 315 Neb. 413 , 996 N.W.2d 629 .

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2016Cite as 294 Neb. 261 and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.36 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those mat- ters actually litigated, but also of those matters that a party could have litigated in the prior action.37 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause.38 (b) Claim Preclusion Does Not Bar Consideration of Changed Circumstances In In re Interest of V.B. and Z.B., the case the court relied on, we discussed the effect of claim preclusion in consider- ing su

2016The State’s objection reasonably raised the common-law defenses of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.9 Claim preclusion, which we have referred to in the past as “res judi- cata,” bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication.10 4 See § 29-4120(1). 5 See State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 , 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014). 6 See § 29-4120(4). 7 See § 29-4120(5). 8 § 29-4122. 9 See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2016The State’s objection reasonably raised the common-law defenses of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.9 Claim preclusion, which we have referred to in the past as “res judi- cata,” bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication.10 4 See § 29-4120(1). 5 See State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 , 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014). 6 See § 29-4120(4). 7 See § 29-4120(5). 8 § 29-4122. 9 See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2026Saylor v. State, 315 Neb. 285 , 995 N.W.2d 192 (2023).

2026Saylor v. State, 315 Neb. 285 , 995 N.W.2d 192 (2023).

2025Boone River, LLC v. Miles, 314 Neb. 889 , 994 N.W.2d 35 (2023), modified on denial of rehear- ing 315 Neb. 413 , 996 N.W.2d 629 .

2023The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action. 7 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 8 3 Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136 , 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022). 4 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 , 985 N.W.2d 402 (2023). 5 Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014). 6 Id. 7 Trausch v. Hagemeier, supra note 4 . 8 Id. - 136 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports BOHLIN

2023The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action. 7 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 8 3 Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136 , 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022). 4 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 , 985 N.W.2d 402 (2023). 5 Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014). 6 Id. 7 Trausch v. Hagemeier, supra note 4 . 8 Id. - 136 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports BOHLIN

2023The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action. 7 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause. 8 3 Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136 , 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022). 4 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538 , 985 N.W.2d 402 (2023). 5 Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014). 6 Id. 7 Trausch v. Hagemeier, supra note 4 . 8 Id. - 136 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports BOHLIN

2018Cite as 300 Neb. 412 [7] As noted, under Nebraska law, claim preclusion bars relitigation of any right, fact, or matter directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.22 Under federal law as stated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim if the prior judgment was a final j

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2016The State’s objection reasonably raised the common-law defenses of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.9 Claim preclusion, which we have referred to in the past as “res judi- cata,” bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication.10 4 See § 29-4120(1). 5 See State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 , 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014). 6 See § 29-4120(4). 7 See § 29-4120(5). 8 § 29-4122. 9 See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2014Resources, 282 Neb. 237 , 803 N.W.2d 28 (2011), disapproved in part on other grounds, Banks v. Heineman, 286 Neb. 390 , 837 N.W.2d 70 (2013); Eicher, supra note 3 ; In re Estate of Wagner, 246 Neb. 625 , 522 N.W.2d 159 (1994). 7 See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2014Resources, 282 Neb. 237 , 803 N.W.2d 28 (2011), disapproved in part on other grounds, Banks v. Heineman, 286 Neb. 390 , 837 N.W.2d 70 (2013); Eicher, supra note 3 ; In re Estate of Wagner, 246 Neb. 625 , 522 N.W.2d 159 (1994). 7 See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2014Resources, 282 Neb. 237 , 803 N.W.2d 28 (2011), disapproved in part on other grounds, Banks v. Heineman, 286 Neb. 390 , 837 N.W.2d 70 (2013); Eicher, supra note 3 ; In re Estate of Wagner, 246 Neb. 625 , 522 N.W.2d 159 (1994). 7 See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

2014Resources, 282 Neb. 237 , 803 N.W.2d 28 (2011), disapproved in part on other grounds, Banks v. Heineman, 286 Neb. 390 , 837 N.W.2d 70 (2013); Eicher, supra note 3 ; In re Estate of Wagner, 246 Neb. 625 , 522 N.W.2d 159 (1994). 7 See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 , 128 S. Ct. 2161 , 171 L.

1993Poe v. John Deere Co., 695 F.2d 1103 (8th Cir. 1982); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, supra. The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of a claim if three requirements are met: (1) The prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the decision was a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.