litigant from reasserting claim in Connecticut

2004“Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); see also Honan v. Dimyan, 63 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 778 A.2d 989 (res judicata may operate to preclude claim decided in previous proceeding within same case), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 942 , 786 A.2d 430 (2001).

2004“Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); see also Honan v. Dimyan, 63 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 778 A.2d 989 (res judicata may operate to preclude claim decided in previous proceeding within same case), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 942 , 786 A.2d 430 (2001).

1994“The subtle distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion has been so described: ‘[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Scalzo v. Danbury, 224 Conn. 124, 127-28 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992), quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 67 , 557 A.2d 540 (1989).

1994“The subtle distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion has been so described: ‘[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Scalzo v. Danbury, 224 Conn. 124, 127-28 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992), quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 67 , 557 A.2d 540 (1989).

1994“The subtle distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion has been so described: ‘[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Scalzo v. Danbury, 224 Conn. 124, 127-28 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992), quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 67 , 557 A.2d 540 (1989).

1994“The subtle distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion has been so described: ‘[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Scalzo v. Danbury, 224 Conn. 124, 127-28 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992), quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 (1988), aff'd, 211 Conn. 67 , 557 A.2d 540 (1989).

2002Although claim preclusion and issue preclusion often appear to merge into one CT Page 10474 another in practice, analytically they are regarded as distinct. "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury , 224 Conn. 124 , 128 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992); see also Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Jones , 220 Conn. 285 , 303-304 , 596 A.2d 414 (1991).

2002Although claim preclusion and issue preclusion often appear to merge into one CT Page 10474 another in practice, analytically they are regarded as distinct. "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury , 224 Conn. 124 , 128 , 617 A.2d 440 (1992); see also Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Jones , 220 Conn. 285 , 303-304 , 596 A.2d 414 (1991).

2003“Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 373 , 727 A.2d 1245 (1999).

2003“Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 373 , 727 A.2d 1245 (1999).

2000"The principle that an administrative adjudication may give rise to resjudicata or collateral estoppel is well settled." Crochiere v. Board of Education, 227 Conn. 333 , 342 n. 10, 630 A.2d 1027 (1993). "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crochiere v. Board of Education, supra, 227 Conn. 343 . "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a former judgment on a

2000"The principle that an administrative adjudication may give rise to resjudicata or collateral estoppel is well settled." Crochiere v. Board of Education, 227 Conn. 333 , 342 n. 10, 630 A.2d 1027 (1993). "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crochiere v. Board of Education, supra, 227 Conn. 343 . "[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a former judgment on a

2006“Res judicata . . . prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Daoust v. McWilliams, 49 Conn. App. 715, 723 , 716 A.2d 922 (1998).

2006“Res judicata . . . prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Daoust v. McWilliams, 49 Conn. App. 715, 723 , 716 A.2d 922 (1998).

2006The preclusive effect of these two doctrines, however, is substantially different. [Cjlaim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in apiior suit.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559, 565-66 , 668 A.2d 367 (1995); see also Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque, 88 Conn. App. 661, 671 , 870 A.2d 1116 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 907 , 908, 876 A.2d 120

2006The preclusive effect of these two doctrines, however, is substantially different. [Cjlaim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in apiior suit.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559, 565-66 , 668 A.2d 367 (1995); see also Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque, 88 Conn. App. 661, 671 , 870 A.2d 1116 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 907 , 908, 876 A.2d 120

2019Therefore, our review is limited to whether there was a manifest disregard of the law. 5 "[T]he doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, commonly referred to as issue preclusion and claim preclusion, respectively, have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.... [I]ssue preclusion ... prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton , 262 Conn. 45 , 57 n.16, 808 A.2d 1107 (2002). 6 Article VII, § 7.0

2019Therefore, our review is limited to whether there was a manifest disregard of the law. 5 "[T]he doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, commonly referred to as issue preclusion and claim preclusion, respectively, have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.... [I]ssue preclusion ... prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton , 262 Conn. 45 , 57 n.16, 808 A.2d 1107 (2002). 6 Article VII, § 7.0

2016In addition, the applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel pre- sents a question of law over which we employ plenary review.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn. App. 707, 720 , 46 A.3d 974 , cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905 , 52 A.3d 732 (2012). ‘‘Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion . . . prevents a party from relitigat

2016In addition, the applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel pre- sents a question of law over which we employ plenary review.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn. App. 707, 720 , 46 A.3d 974 , cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905 , 52 A.3d 732 (2012). ‘‘Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion . . . prevents a party from relitigat

2003Issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nancy G. v. Department of Children Families , 248 Conn. 672 , 681 , 733 A.2d 136 (1999).

2003Issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nancy G. v. Department of Children Families , 248 Conn. 672 , 681 , 733 A.2d 136 (1999).

2000Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Krondes v. Norwalk Saving Society, 53 Conn. App. 102 , 119 , 728 A.2d 1103 (1999).

2000Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Krondes v. Norwalk Saving Society, 53 Conn. App. 102 , 119 , 728 A.2d 1103 (1999).

1999Whipple, Inc., 225 Conn. 705, 712 , 627 A.2d 374 (1993). “ ‘Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.

1999Whipple, Inc., 225 Conn. 705, 712 , 627 A.2d 374 (1993). “ ‘Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.

1999"Claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) have been described as related ideas on a continuum. [C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." Mazziotti v. Allstate Insurance Co., 240 Conn. 799 , 812 (1997).

1998Co. , 240 Conn. 799 , 812 , 695 A.2d 1010 (1997).

1997"The doctrine of res judicata provides that a former judgment serves as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving any claims relating to such cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 221 Conn. 384 , 391-92 , 604 A.2d 347 (1992)." Tucker v. Pace Investment Associates, 32 Conn. App. 384 , 388 (1993).

1997"The doctrine of res judicata provides that a former judgment serves as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving any claims relating to such cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 221 Conn. 384 , 391-92 , 604 A.2d 347 (1992)." Tucker v. Pace Investment Associates, 32 Conn. App. 384 , 388 (1993).

1997CT Page 812 "`Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . .'" In re John B., 20 Conn. App. 725 , 570 A.2d 237 (1990); quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497 , 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988).

1997CT Page 812 "`Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . .'" In re John B., 20 Conn. App. 725 , 570 A.2d 237 (1990); quoting Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497 , 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988).

1997"The doctrine of res judicata provides that a former judgment serves as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving any claims relating to such cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 221 Conn. 384 , 391-92 , 604 A.2d 347 (1992)." Tucker v. Pace Investment Associates, 32 Conn. App. 384 , 388 (1993).

1994"Res judicata or claim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . ." (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Ibid.

1996The preclusive effect of these two doctrines, however, is substantially different. `[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497 , 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988). `[I]ssue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. DeMilo Co., 233 Conn. 254 , 267 , 659 A.2d 148 (1995).

1996The preclusive effect of these two doctrines, however, is substantially different. `[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497 , 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988). `[I]ssue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. DeMilo Co., 233 Conn. 254 , 267 , 659 A.2d 148 (1995).

1994“In contrast, issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury, supra, 128 , quoting Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82, 94-95 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 316 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983).

1994“In contrast, issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury, supra, 128 , quoting Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82, 94-95 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 316 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983).

1994“In contrast, issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury, supra, 128 , quoting Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82, 94-95 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 316 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983).

1994“In contrast, issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scalzo v. Danbury, supra, 128 , quoting Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82, 94-95 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 316 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983).

1989Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.’ Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 , cert. granted, 209 Conn. 809 , 548 A.2d 437 (1988).” Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988).

1988Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.” Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 , cert. granted, 209 Conn. 809 , 548 A.2d 437 (1988); see also State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436, 462-67 , 497 A.2d 974 (1985); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 313-18 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983); Gennarini Construction Co. v. Messina Painting & Decorating Co., 15 Conn. App. 504, 509-10 , 545 A.2d 579 (1988).

1989Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.’ Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 , cert. granted, 209 Conn. 809 , 548 A.2d 437 (1988).” Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988).

1988Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit.” Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 15 Conn. App. 392, 401-402 , 546 A.2d 284 , cert. granted, 209 Conn. 809 , 548 A.2d 437 (1988); see also State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436, 462-67 , 497 A.2d 974 (1985); In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310, 313-18 , 460 A.2d 1277 (1983); Gennarini Construction Co. v. Messina Painting & Decorating Co., 15 Conn. App. 504, 509-10 , 545 A.2d 579 (1988).

2021Therefore, the respon- dent argues, because the Appellate Court already applied Williams in the petitioner’s direct appeal to conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remarks did not prejudice him, he is collaterally estopped from arguing in the habeas action that, pursuant to Strick- land, he was prejudiced by his criminal trial counsel’s failure to object to those remarks.4 Because we con- clude that the issue in the present case is not identical to that presented in the direct appeal, we agree with the petitioner. ‘‘[T]he doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judi- cata, commonly referred

2021Therefore, the respon- dent argues, because the Appellate Court already applied Williams in the petitioner’s direct appeal to conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remarks did not prejudice him, he is collaterally estopped from arguing in the habeas action that, pursuant to Strick- land, he was prejudiced by his criminal trial counsel’s failure to object to those remarks.4 Because we con- clude that the issue in the present case is not identical to that presented in the direct appeal, we agree with the petitioner. ‘‘[T]he doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judi- cata, commonly referred

2019Res judicata bars relitigation of such judgments or matters that could have been litigated in the prior action. "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LaSalla v. Doctor's Associates, Inc ., 278 Conn. 578 , 590, 898 A.2d 803 (2006).

2019Res judicata bars relitigation of such judgments or matters that could have been litigated in the prior action. "[C]laim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LaSalla v. Doctor's Associates, Inc ., 278 Conn. 578 , 590, 898 A.2d 803 (2006).

2018Co. , 179 Conn. App. 9 , 14, 178 A.3d 445 (2017) ("[c]ollateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating issues and facts actually and necessarily determined in an earlier proceeding between the same parties" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp. , 255 Conn. 762 , 773, 770 A.2d 1 (2001) ("[a]s a general proposition, the governing principle is that administrative adjudications have a preclusive effect when the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

2018Co. , 179 Conn. App. 9 , 14, 178 A.3d 445 (2017) ("[c]ollateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating issues and facts actually and necessarily determined in an earlier proceeding between the same parties" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp. , 255 Conn. 762 , 773, 770 A.2d 1 (2001) ("[a]s a general proposition, the governing principle is that administrative adjudications have a preclusive effect when the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).