res judicata embraces two distinct branches doctrine in Utah

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2013That proposed order simply states, "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above matter be dismissed based on the motion of the Murray City Prosecutor." 180 "The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim pre *674 clusion and issue preclusion." Mack v. Utah State Dep't of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Cllaim preclusion corresponds to causes of action," id. (alteration in original), and "bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously," In re D.A., 2009 UT 83, ¶ 33 , 2

2013That proposed order simply states, "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above matter be dismissed based on the motion of the Murray City Prosecutor." 180 "The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim pre *674 clusion and issue preclusion." Mack v. Utah State Dep't of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "[Cllaim preclusion corresponds to causes of action," id. (alteration in original), and "bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously," In re D.A., 2009 UT 83, ¶ 33 , 2

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2023Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13 , 994 P.2d 210 , cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously. 20210345-CA 10 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to

2013On Defendants’ motions, the district court dismissed Hansen’s claims with prejudice, concluding that they were barred by res judicata as a result of the dismissal of the federal suit. ¶5 “The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29 , 221 P.3d 194 (citation and internal 20120010‐CA 2 2013 UT App 132 Hansen v. Bank of New York Mellon quotation marks omitted).

2013Only claim preclusion is at issue here.1 “[C]laim preclusion corresponds to causes of action,” id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and “bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously,” In re D.A., 2009 UT 83, ¶ 33 , 222 P.3d 1172 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).