res judicata doctrine in Kansas

2022The doctrine of res judicata provides that "'where an appeal is taken from the sentence imposed and/or a conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised, and those issues that could have been presented, but were not presented, are deemed waived.'" State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901 , 326 P.3d 1083 (2014).

2022The doctrine of res judicata provides that "'where an appeal is taken from the sentence imposed and/or a conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised, and those issues that could have been presented, but were not presented, are deemed waived.'" State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901 , 326 P.3d 1083 (2014).

2022PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed Regina Smith's civil lawsuit after finding the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010), and Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997).

2022PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed Regina Smith's civil lawsuit after finding the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010), and Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997).

2022Citing the doctrine of res judicata, the Supreme Court declined to review the claim, finding that Neer could have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in his direct appeal but did not. 247 Kan. at 141-45 .

2016"The doctrine of res judicata provides that 'where an appeal is taken from the sentence imposed and/or a conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised, and those issues that could have been presented, but were not presented, are deemed waived.'" State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901 , 326 P.3d 1083 (2014) (quoting State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137, 140-41 , 795 P.2d 362 [1990]).

1991Even though the parties’ arguments on appeal speak of the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion), it is the closely related doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) that is involved. *377 It is said in Penachio v. Walker, 207 Kan. 54, 57 , 483 P.2d 1119 (1971): “The doctrine of res judicata is a bar to a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.

1991Even though the parties’ arguments on appeal speak of the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion), it is the closely related doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) that is involved. *377 It is said in Penachio v. Walker, 207 Kan. 54, 57 , 483 P.2d 1119 (1971): “The doctrine of res judicata is a bar to a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.

1995Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that the party “has litigated or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Jackson Trak Group, Inc. v. Mid States Port Authority, 242 Kan. 683, 690 , 751 P.2d 122 (1988). “[T]he doctrine of res judicata is held not to apply to issues raised in the previous case which were not decided by the court or jury.

1995Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that the party “has litigated or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Jackson Trak Group, Inc. v. Mid States Port Authority, 242 Kan. 683, 690 , 751 P.2d 122 (1988). “[T]he doctrine of res judicata is held not to apply to issues raised in the previous case which were not decided by the court or jury.

2016“The applicability of res judicata is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review.” State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013). *480 “The doctrine of res judicata provides that ‘where an appeal is taken from the sentence imposed and/or a conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised, and those issues that could have been presented, but were not presented, are deemed waived.’ [Citations omitted.]”Stoie v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901 , 326 P.3d 1083 (2014).

2016“The applicability of res judicata is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review.” State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013). *480 “The doctrine of res judicata provides that ‘where an appeal is taken from the sentence imposed and/or a conviction, the judgment of the reviewing court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised, and those issues that could have been presented, but were not presented, are deemed waived.’ [Citations omitted.]”Stoie v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901 , 326 P.3d 1083 (2014).

2022PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed Regina Smith's civil lawsuit after finding the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010), and Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997).

2022PER CURIAM: The district court dismissed Regina Smith's civil lawsuit after finding the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 , 223 P.3d 786 (2010), and Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388 , 949 P.2d 602 (1997).

2022While Smith's appeal of this dismissal was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court overruled both Rhoten and Stanfield in Herington v. City of Wichita, 314 Kan. 447 , 500 P.3d 1168 (2021).

2022Cid appeals, arguing that the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Herington v. City of Wichita, 314 Kan. 447 , 500 P.3d 1168 (2021)—decided during the pendency of his direct appeal—requires this court to reverse the district court's dismissal.

2022We exercise that discretion and apply the res judicata doctrine because doing so 8 fulfills the policy reasons that support the res judicata doctrine, which are "'to avoid indefinite relitigation of the same issue, to obtain consistent results in the same litigation, to afford one opportunity for argument and decision of the matter at issue, and to assure the obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts.' Collier, 263 Kan. at 631 ." Parry, 305 Kan. at 1194-95.

2016To apply such holdings in this case would require us to ignore a fundamental principle of Kansas law regarding the doctrine of res judicata: The res judicata doctrine only applies when "a 26 second cause of action is filed in order to attempt to relitigate issues between the same parties." (Emphasis added.) State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 633 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998).

2022And in Drach v. Bruce, 281 Kan. 1058 , Syl. ¶ 14, 136 P.3d 390 (2006), we held the res judicata doctrine applied in a K.S.A. 60-1507 action to issues previously resolved in the criminal case.

2022And in Drach v. Bruce, 281 Kan. 1058 , Syl. ¶ 14, 136 P.3d 390 (2006), we held the res judicata doctrine applied in a K.S.A. 60-1507 action to issues previously resolved in the criminal case.

2019There, we 11 held the State had failed to prove a material change in circumstances and a second SVPA action was therefore barred by the res judicata doctrine. 289 Kan. at 688-89 .

2019But in Sporn, we applied the res judicata doctrine; we did not discuss collateral estoppel. 289 Kan. at 685-89 .

2022See Bogguess v. State, 306 Kan. 574 , 579-80, 395 P.3d 447 (2017); Grossman v. State, 300 Kan. 1058, 1063 , 337 P.3d 687 (2014); see also State v. Dull, 298 Kan. 832, 839 , 317 P.3d 104 (2014) ("The merits of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ordinarily are not addressed for the first time on direct appeal.").

2017Additionally, we noted that Grossman's "ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not one he typically could have presented on direct appeal." Grossman, 300 Kan. at 1063 (citing Dull, 298 Kan. at 839 ). 12 For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law when it determined that Bogguess' Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim (based on his allegation that defense counsel deceived and tricked him) was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2021The doctrine of res judicata is, therefore, to be given a liberal application but not applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wells, 204 Kan. at 678 (the doctrine must "be given a liberal application but not applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice"); Swigart v. Knox, 165 Kan. 410, 423 , 196 P.2d 246 (1948) (Cowan, J., dissenting) ("The application of the doctrine of res judicata is not inflexible.

2021The doctrine of res judicata is, therefore, to be given a liberal application but not applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wells, 204 Kan. at 678 (the doctrine must "be given a liberal application but not applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice"); Swigart v. Knox, 165 Kan. 410, 423 , 196 P.2d 246 (1948) (Cowan, J., dissenting) ("The application of the doctrine of res judicata is not inflexible.

2021"Res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents relitigation of previously litigated claims and consist of the following four elements: (1) same claim; (2) same parties; (3) claims were or could have been raised; and (4) a final judgment on the merits." Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396, 413 , 49 P.3d 1274 (2002).

2021"Res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents relitigation of previously litigated claims and consist of the following four elements: (1) same claim; (2) same parties; (3) claims were or could have been raised; and (4) a final judgment on the merits." Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 274 Kan. 396, 413 , 49 P.3d 1274 (2002).

2019"An issue is res judicata when [these] four conditions concur." Regency Park, 267 Kan. at 478 .

2009Res judicata prevents relitigation where the following requirements are met: “ ‘(1) identity in the thing sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity in the quality of persons for or against whom claim is made.’ ” Waterview Resolution Corp. v. Allen, 274 Kan. 1016, 1023 , 58 P.3d 1284 (2002) (quoting Regency Park v. City of Topeka, 267 Kan. 465, 478 , 981 P.2d 256 [1999]).

1981The doctrine of res judicata was stated in Jayhawk Equipment Co. v. Mentzer, 191 Kan. 57, 61 , 379 P.2d 342 (1963), as follows: “The doctrine of res judicata is plain and intelligible, and amounts simply to this — that a cause of action once finally determined, without appeal, between the parties, on the merits, by a competent tribunal cannot afterwards be litigated by a new proceeding, either before the same or any other tribunal.

1981The doctrine of res judicata was stated in Jayhawk Equipment Co. v. Mentzer, 191 Kan. 57, 61 , 379 P.2d 342 (1963), as follows: “The doctrine of res judicata is plain and intelligible, and amounts simply to this — that a cause of action once finally determined, without appeal, between the parties, on the merits, by a competent tribunal cannot afterwards be litigated by a new proceeding, either before the same or any other tribunal.

2008Ed. 2d 56 , 104 S. Ct. 892 (1984) (explaining that the preclusive effects of former adjudication are collectively referred to as the doctrine of res judicata, but when the term res judicata is used in a narrow sense, it has become almost synonymous with “claim preclusion”).

2008Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75 , 77 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 892 , 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) (explaining that the preclusive effects of former adjudication are collectively referred to as the doctrine of res judicata, but when the term res judicata is used in a narrow sense, it has become almost synonymous with "claim preclusion").

1988Once a cause of action has been prosecuted to final judgment, all mattei's pertaining thereto and which were or properly should have been litigated under the facts constituting such cause of action are conclusively determined by that judgment .... [citations omitted], ‘In Steele v. Stephenson, 104 Kan. 469, 474 , 179 Pac. 304 , it was said: “ ‘The doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the questions brought forward by the defendants in their testimony but also as to every question open to consideration as a part of the subject of litigation and which could have been presented at that tim

1903(Coal Co. v. Brick Co., 52 Kan. 747 , 35 Pac. 810 .) The tendency of courts is to require a party who brings a matter into litigation to present his entire case and all of the evidence then available ; and also to regard a judgment in the case as conclusive between the same parties upon all things essentially connected with the subject-matter of the litigation and which the parties might have had decided. ( Whitaker v. Hawley, 30 Kan. 317 , 1 Pac. 508 ; Hoisington, Sheriff, v. Brakey, 31 id. 560, 3 Pac. 353 ; W. & W.

1988Once a cause of action has been prosecuted to final judgment, all mattei's pertaining thereto and which were or properly should have been litigated under the facts constituting such cause of action are conclusively determined by that judgment .... [citations omitted], ‘In Steele v. Stephenson, 104 Kan. 469, 474 , 179 Pac. 304 , it was said: “ ‘The doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the questions brought forward by the defendants in their testimony but also as to every question open to consideration as a part of the subject of litigation and which could have been presented at that tim

1988Once a cause of action has been prosecuted to final judgment, all mattei's pertaining thereto and which were or properly should have been litigated under the facts constituting such cause of action are conclusively determined by that judgment .... [citations omitted], ‘In Steele v. Stephenson, 104 Kan. 469, 474 , 179 Pac. 304 , it was said: “ ‘The doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the questions brought forward by the defendants in their testimony but also as to every question open to consideration as a part of the subject of litigation and which could have been presented at that tim

1986The res judicata rule relied upon by the Court is stated in the opinion as follows: “ ‘It has been repeatedly held that when all parties are in court, and the court has full jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties and could determine all issues properly involved, all such issues should be then determined, and that not only do the matters which are then expressly determined but also all other matters which might and should have been then determined becomes [sic] res judicata and are not available to the parties in a future action.’ Id. 156 Kan. at 565 , 134 P.2d at 636 .

1986The res judicata rule relied upon by the Court is stated in the opinion as follows: “ ‘It has been repeatedly held that when all parties are in court, and the court has full jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties and could determine all issues properly involved, all such issues should be then determined, and that not only do the matters which are then expressly determined but also all other matters which might and should have been then determined becomes [sic] res judicata and are not available to the parties in a future action.’ Id. 156 Kan. at 565 , 134 P.2d at 636 .

1981In Adamson v. Hill, 202 Kan. 482, 487 , 449 P.2d 536 (1969), the court iterated the requisite conditions as follows: “We have long followed the rule that an issue is res judicata only when there is a concurrence of four conditions, namely, (1) identity in the things sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Plaintiff contends conditions (2), identity of the cause of action, and (4), identity in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is

1981In Adamson v. Hill, 202 Kan. 482, 487 , 449 P.2d 536 (1969), the court iterated the requisite conditions as follows: “We have long followed the rule that an issue is res judicata only when there is a concurrence of four conditions, namely, (1) identity in the things sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Plaintiff contends conditions (2), identity of the cause of action, and (4), identity in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is

1979We held in Taber v. Taber, 213 Kan. 453 -454, 516 P.2d 987 (1973): “The doctrine of res judicata is plain and intelligible, and amounts simply to this — that a cause of action once finally determined, without appeal, between the parties, on the merits, by a competent tribunal cannot afterwards be litigated by a new proceeding, either before the same or any other tribunal.” The previous action was between the same parties concerning the same facts and was fully determined, without appeal, on the merits, except for the reserved question of whether gallonage rent should be paid on diesel fuel, wh

1979We held in Taber v. Taber, 213 Kan. 453 -454, 516 P.2d 987 (1973): “The doctrine of res judicata is plain and intelligible, and amounts simply to this — that a cause of action once finally determined, without appeal, between the parties, on the merits, by a competent tribunal cannot afterwards be litigated by a new proceeding, either before the same or any other tribunal.” The previous action was between the same parties concerning the same facts and was fully determined, without appeal, on the merits, except for the reserved question of whether gallonage rent should be paid on diesel fuel, wh