res judicata doctrine in Rhode Island

2026The trial justice suggested that the town had consented to separate lawsuits by allowing Davis’s actions to linger without consolidating them; and thus, under ElGabri v. Lekas, 681 A.2d 271 (R.I. 1996),8 it could not invoke the doctrine of res judicata.

2011See Elgabri , 681 A.2d at 275 -78 ; see also Bossian , 991 A.2d at 1027 , Lennon , 901 A.2d 592 ; DiBattista , 808 A.2d 1086 . 40 "The Restatement recommends that the doctrine of res judicata be applied to those matters actually litigated between parties, as well as those that are derived from a `series of connected transactions.'" Elgabri , 681 A.2d at 276 (citing Restatement (Second) Judgments § 24).

2025Indeed, “[t]his Court repeatedly has said that the doctrine of res judicata ‘provides a procedural bar not only to issues that have been raised and decided in a previous postconviction-relief proceeding, but also to the []litigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, even if the particular issue was not raised.’” Mattatall v. State, 126 A.3d 480 , 481 (R.I. 2015) (mem.) (quoting Ferrell, 971 A.2d at 620 ).

2015The hearing justice granted the state’s motion to dismiss applicant’s third application for postconviction relief after he found that the jury-instruction issue raised by applicant was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, codified in G.L. 1956 § 10–9.1–8 which says “[a]ll grounds for relief available to an applicant * * * must be raised in his or her [direct appeal or] original * * * application [for postconviction relief] * * * unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.” This Court repeatedly has said that th

2026“Privity exists where there is a commonality of interests such that one party adequately represents the other’s interests.” Mallozzi v. Warwick Wings, LLC, 330 A.3d 557 , 569 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d 526, 531 (R.I. 2013)). -6- As to the identity of the issues element, “this Court has adopted the ‘transactional’ rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Bossian, 991 A.2d at 1027 (deletion omitted) (quoting DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081, 1086 (R.I. 2002)).

2018In this case, there is no claim that res judicata fails for want of identity of parties; therefore, we need not address that factor here and instead focus only on whether an identity of the issues and a final judgment on the merits exist. 1 Identity of Issues "An identity of issues requires 'first, [that] the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; second, the issue must actually [have been] litigated; and third, the issue must necessarily have been decided.' " State v. Pacheco , 161 A.3d 1166 , 1173 (R.I. 2017) (quoting State v. Godette , 7

2026Analysis This Court has consistently held that the doctrine of res judicata “prohibits the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit.” Bossian v. Anderson, 991 A.2d 1025, 1027 (R.I. 2010) (emphasis and deletion omitted) (quoting Carrozza v. Voccola, 962 A.2d 73, 78 (R.I. 2009)).

2026“Privity exists where there is a commonality of interests such that one party adequately represents the other’s interests.” Mallozzi v. Warwick Wings, LLC, 330 A.3d 557 , 569 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d 526, 531 (R.I. 2013)). -6- As to the identity of the issues element, “this Court has adopted the ‘transactional’ rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Bossian, 991 A.2d at 1027 (deletion omitted) (quoting DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081, 1086 (R.I. 2002)).

2016Res judicata applies in cases where “there' exists identity of parties, identity of issues, and finality of judgment in. an earlier action.” Id, (quoting Beirne v. Barone, 529 A.2d 154, 157 (R.I.1987)).

2006For res judicata to apply, the moving party must show "identity of parties, identity of issues, and finality of judgment in an earlier action." Beirne v. Barone, 529 A.2d 154 , 157 (R.I. 1987) (citing Hebert v. Ventetuolo, 480 A.2d 403 , 405 (R.I. 1984)).

2015The hearing justice granted the state’s motion to dismiss applicant’s third application for postconviction relief after he found that the jury-instruction issue raised by applicant was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, codified in G.L. 1956 § 10–9.1–8 which says “[a]ll grounds for relief available to an applicant * * * must be raised in his or her [direct appeal or] original * * * application [for postconviction relief] * * * unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.” This Court repeatedly has said that th

2009See Ramirez, 933 A.2d at 1112 (holding, with respect to the fact that the applicant had raised new claims for the first time in his third postconviction-relief application, that because the claims could have been raised in either prior application, they were barred based on the doctrine of res judica- ta); Ouimette, 785 A.2d at 1138 (holding that, although the question of whether the applicant’s plea was knowing and voluntary was not raised in his previous application for postconviction relief, it could have been raised, and therefore litigation on that claim was barred by the doctrine of res

2014The second requirement necessary to apply the doctrine of res judicata is “identity of issues.” Lennon, 901 A.2d at 592 .

2011To determine the remaining element, identity of issues, Rhode Island courts use the "`transactional rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata * * *.'" Id. (omission in original) (quoting DiBattista v. State , 808 A.2d 1081 , 1086 (R.I. 2002)) (citing Lennon v. Dacomend Corp. , 901 A.2d 582 , 592 (R.I. 2006); Ritter v. Mantissa Inv.

2018Res judicata does not permit one the luxury of trying his case on the installment plan." Perez v. Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency , 111 R.I. 327 , 336, 302 A.2d 785 , 791 (1973). 6 I also note that, although the trial justice dismissed Nugent II on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata , his application of that doctrine to this case was conceptually quite different from the res judicata reasoning that I think should govern this particular case.

2018Res judicata does not permit one the luxury of trying his case on the installment plan." Perez v. Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency , 111 R.I. 327 , 336, 302 A.2d 785 , 791 (1973). 6 I also note that, although the trial justice dismissed Nugent II on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata , his application of that doctrine to this case was conceptually quite different from the res judicata reasoning that I think should govern this particular case.

2026Analysis This Court has consistently held that the doctrine of res judicata “prohibits the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit.” Bossian v. Anderson, 991 A.2d 1025, 1027 (R.I. 2010) (emphasis and deletion omitted) (quoting Carrozza v. Voccola, 962 A.2d 73, 78 (R.I. 2009)).

2024It is their position that this Court should reject “Mr. DoCouto’s suggestion that his new Superior Court case somehow evades the preclusive effect of the judgment and stipulation in his District Court case.” The defendants contend that Mr. DoCouto’s “claims are barred, and the Superior Court properly dismissed them.” The doctrine of res judicata “prohibits the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit * * *.” Bossian v. Anderson, 991 A.2d 1025, 1027 (R.I. 2010) (quoting Carrozza v. Voccola, 962 A.2d 73, 78 (R.I. 2009)); see also Apex Oil Company,

2026“Privity exists where there is a commonality of interests such that one party adequately represents the other’s interests.” Mallozzi v. Warwick Wings, LLC, 330 A.3d 557 , 569 (R.I. 2025) (quoting Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d 526, 531 (R.I. 2013)). -6- As to the identity of the issues element, “this Court has adopted the ‘transactional’ rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Bossian, 991 A.2d at 1027 (deletion omitted) (quoting DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081, 1086 (R.I. 2002)).

2015See Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d 526, 531-33 (R.I.2013) (Huntley I). 1 Accordingly, we refer the interested reader to our opinion in Huntley I, and we shall set forth herein only the facts necessary to our analysis of this most recent appeal.

2026“In accordance with that rule, res judicata ‘precludes the relitigation of all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the first action arose.’” Reynolds, 81 A.3d at 1116 (brackets omitted) (quoting Lennon v. Dacomed Corp., 901 A.2d 582, 592 (R.I. 2006)).

2020“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been tried in an earlier action.” JHRW, LLC v. Seaport Studios, Inc., 212 A.3d 168, 177 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Reynolds v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC, 81 A.3d 1111, 1115 (R.I. 2014)).

2020“It has long been established that ‘full faith and credit generally requires every State to give a judgment at least the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded in the State which rendered it.’” Lamarque v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 927 A.2d 753 , - 13 - 760 (R.I. 2007) (brackets omitted) (quoting Hospitality Management Associates, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 591 S.E.2d 611, 616 (S.C. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 916 (2004)).

2007Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 179 F.3d 641, 648-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1004 , 120 S.Ct. 497 , 145 L.Ed.2d 384 (1999); see also Hospitality Management Associates, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 356 S.C. 644 , 591 S.E.2d 611 (2004). .

2014We have recognized a “very limited and narrow exception” to the res judicata bar in the postconviction relief context, pursuant to which “issues which were finally adjudicated or not [previously] raised may nonetheless be the basis for a subsequent application for postconviction relief if the court finds it to be in the interest of justice.” Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 905 (applying § 10-9.1-8) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2010See Mattatall v. State , 947 A.2d 896 (R.I. 2008).

2011In Russo , the United States District Court, applying Rhode Island law and civil procedure, held that a plaintiff is not required to supplement his original pleadings as a result of subsequent events and, therefore, claims based on the subsequent events cannot be barred by res judicata. 13 See 919 F. Supp. at 570-71 (reasoning that *Page 29 "[s]ince all the circuit courts that have confronted this issue have refused to apply a res judicata bar to claims arising after the original lawsuit was filed, the Rhode Island courts would likely follow suit); see also Manning v. City of Auburn , 953 F.2d

2011See Russo , 919 F. Supp. at 570-71 (Anticipating that Rhode Island courts would follow circuit courts confronting the issue and have refused to apply a res judicata bar to claims arising after the original lawsuit was filed). 48 The Order denying the motion was entered by the Court on Oct. 22, 1997. 49 This Court also notes that Mr. Surabian would not have been included as an "unknown" or "unascertained" defendant in the Conti Action since Mr. Surabian's alleged acts of adverse possession did not begin until 1982, only five years prior to the filing of the Conti Action Complaint.

2008As we have stated, the doctrine “serves as an absolute bar to a second cause of action where there exists identity of parties, identity of issues, and finality of judgment in an earlier action.” Gaudreau v. Blasbalg, 618 A.2d 1272, 1275 (R.I.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Garganta, 730 A.2d at 4 .

2002Res judicata also operates to prevent “multiple and possibly inconsistent resolutions of the same lawsuit.” Gaudreau v. Blasbalg, 618 A.2d 1272, 1275 (R.I.1993).

2008While the doctrine does not have the finality of the doctrine of res judicata, it is nevertheless a doctrine "that generally ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function." Payne v. Superior Court , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (R.I. 1951).

2008While the doctrine does not have the finality of the doctrine of res judicata, it is nevertheless a doctrine "that generally ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise among them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function." Payne v. Superior Court , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (R.I. 1951).

2024It is more in the nature of a rule of policy and convenience.” Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc., 469 A.2d 353, 356 (R.I. 1983).

2009It is more in the nature of a rule of policy and convenience." Id. at 356 *Page 8 (citation omitted).

2016To avoid the waste of judicial resources and the potential for contradictory judgments,' id,, the doctrine of res judicata bars “the relitigation of all the'issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original 'suit,” Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185, 1188 (R.I.2005) (quoting Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d 1008 , 1014 n. 2 (R.I.2004)).

2011If the facts underlying both actions constitute a single transaction or series of transactions, the identity of issues prong of the res judicata inquiry is satisfied "`regardless of the number of substantive theories, or variant forms of relief flowing from those theories, that may be available to the plaintiff.'" Plunkett , 869 A.2d at 1189 (quoting Restatement (Second) Judgments § 24 cmt.

2010As to the second element (identity of issues), “this Court has adopted the ‘transactional’ rule governing the preclu-sive effect of the doctrine of res judicata * * DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081, 1086 (R.I.2002); see also Lennon v. Dacomed Corp., 901 A.2d 582, 592 (R.I.2006); Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp., 864 A.2d 601, 605 (R.I.2005).

2007The doctrine of res judicata, or "claim preclusion," renders "a prior judgment in a civil action between the same parties conclusive with regard to any issues that were litigated in the prior action, or, that could have been presented and litigated therein." Waters v. Magee , 877 A.2d 658 , 666 (R.I. 2005) (citing Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp. , 864 A.2d 601 , 605 (R.I. 2005) (internal citations omitted)).

2020Although no final judgment has entered in that case, the sale of the marina in that proceeding was an interlocutory order concerning the sale of -8- “[T]his Court has adopted the transactional rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Seaport Studios, Inc., 212 A.3d at 178 (quoting Goodrow, 184 A.3d at 1127 ).

2020With respect to the identity of issues prong, “this Court has adopted the transactional rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. at 178 (brackets omitted) (quoting Goodrow, 184 A.3d at 1127 ).

2016To avoid the waste of judicial resources and the potential for contradictory judgments,' id,, the doctrine of res judicata bars “the relitigation of all the'issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original 'suit,” Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185, 1188 (R.I.2005) (quoting Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d 1008 , 1014 n. 2 (R.I.2004)).

2010The transactional rule provides that “all claims arising from the same transaction or series of transactions which could have properly been raised in a previous litigation are barred from a later action.” DiBattista, 808 A.2d at 1086 ; see also Mills v. Toselli, 916 A.2d 756, 757 (R.I.2006) (mem.); see generally Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, Department of Labor and Training, 854 A.2d 1008 , 1014 n. 2 (R.I.2004); Thomas v. Ross, 477 A.2d 950, 953 (R.I.1984) (“Trial on an installment-plan basis cannot be countenanced * * *.”).

2010See Taylor, 821 A.2d at 688 (“Res judicata bars the relitigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, including a direct appeal, that resulted in a final judgment between the same parties, or those in privity with them.”).

2008Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.” (Emphasis added.) The res judicata doctrine “operates as an absolute bar to relitigation of the same issues between the same parties when a final judgment has been rendered.” Carillo v. Moran,

2020Section 10-9.1-8 provides, in pertinent part, that: “Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds that in the interest of - 10 - justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.” “Thus, the doctrine of res judicata ‘bars the relitigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, includ

2019See Kenlin Properties, LLC v. City of East Providence , 139 A.3d 491 , 497-98 (R.I. 2016) ("[C]ollateral estoppel applies when the case meets three requirements: (1) the parties are the same or in privity with the parties of the previous proceeding; (2) a final judgment on the merits has been entered in the previous proceeding; [and] (3) the issue or issues in question are identical in both proceedings.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Hall v. State , 60 A.3d 928 , 932 (R.I. 2013) (" Res judicata bars the relitigation of any issue that could have been litigated in a prior proceeding, incl

2019Furthermore, "[t]his Court has adopted the transactional rule governing the preclusive effect of the doctrine of res judicata ." Id. (deletion omitted) (quoting Bossian v. Anderson , 991 A.2d 1025 , 1027 (R.I. 2010) ).

2018In this case, there is no claim that res judicata fails for want of identity of parties; therefore, we need not address that factor here and instead focus only on whether an identity of the issues and a final judgment on the merits exist. 1 Identity of Issues "An identity of issues requires 'first, [that] the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; second, the issue must actually [have been] litigated; and third, the issue must necessarily have been decided.' " State v. Pacheco , 161 A.3d 1166 , 1173 (R.I. 2017) (quoting State v. Godette , 7

2018In addition, Goodrow argues that he “did not have the opportunity to fully litigate his claims as the [f]ederal [c]omplaint was subjected to limited procedure and in fact was stayed for most of the time it was part of the federal court docket.” Our review of the relevant caselaw in this jurisdiction does not indicate that a stay of a party’s case in advance of a grant of a motion to dismiss would stunt that party’s ability to litigate his or her claims. -9- We lead with the principle that “[a] dismissal, with prejudice, constitutes a final judgment on the merits.” DiPinto v. Sperling, 9 F.3d 2

2018We lead with the principle that "[a] dismissal, with prejudice, constitutes a final judgment on the merits." DiPinto v. Sperling , 9 F.3d 2 , 4 (1st Cir. 1993) (reviewing the Rhode Island doctrine of res judicata ).

2014“In determining the scope of the issues to be precluded in the second action, we have adopted the broad ‘transactional’ rule.” Id. (quoting Waters v. Magee, 877 A.2d 658, 666 (R.I.2005)).

2007The doctrine of res judicata, or "claim preclusion," renders "a prior judgment in a civil action between the same parties conclusive with regard to any issues that were litigated in the prior action, or, that could have been presented and litigated therein." Waters v. Magee , 877 A.2d 658 , 666 (R.I. 2005) (citing Ritter v. Mantissa Investment Corp. , 864 A.2d 601 , 605 (R.I. 2005) (internal citations omitted)).

2009Miguel, 924 A.2d at 4 .

2008Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds that in the interest of justice the applicant should be permitted to assert such a ground for relief.” (Emphasis added.) The res judicata doctrine “operates as an absolute bar to relitigation of the same issues between the same parties when a final judgment has been rendered.” Carillo v. Moran,