res judicata doctrine in South Carolina

2024Co. v. City of Conway, 334 S.C. 30, 34 , 512 S.E.2d 106, 109 (1999) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties."); id. ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, '[a] litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit.'" (quoting Hilton Head Ctr. of South Carolina, Inc. v. Pub.

2024Co. v. City of Conway, 334 S.C. 30, 34 , 512 S.E.2d 106, 109 (1999) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties."); id. ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, '[a] litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit.'" (quoting Hilton Head Ctr. of South Carolina, Inc. v. Pub.

2025Found. v. Greenville County, 401 S.C. 377, 385 , 737 S.E.2d 502 , 506 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties." (quoting Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 172 , 712 S.E.2d 408, 414 (2011))); id. at 393, 737 S.E.2d at 506 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit." (quoting Judy, at 160, 712 S.E.2d a

2025Found. v. Greenville County, 401 S.C. 377, 385 , 737 S.E.2d 502 , 506 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties." (quoting Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 172 , 712 S.E.2d 408, 414 (2011))); id. at 393, 737 S.E.2d at 506 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit." (quoting Judy, at 160, 712 S.E.2d a

2004As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Warder on the res judicata defense: Town of Sullivan’s Island v. Felger , 318 S.C. 340, 344 , 457 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 1995) (“The doctrine [of res judicata ] requires three essential elements: (1) the judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matter properly included in the first action.”).

2004As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Warder on the res judicata defense: Town of Sullivan’s Island v. Felger , 318 S.C. 340, 344 , 457 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 1995) (“The doctrine [of res judicata ] requires three essential elements: (1) the judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matter properly included in the first action.”).

1999See Hilton Head Center of S.C., Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n of S.C., 294 S.C. 9, 11 , 362 S.E.2d 176, 177 (1987) (Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit.”). *539 Kunja, however, contends that because Rogers sought compensation in the 1990 Claim for an occupational disease caused by exposure to chemicals, the 1993 Claim is barred by res judicata because it too involves a claim of an occupational disease caused by exposure to chemicals.

1999See Hilton Head Center of S.C., Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n of S.C., 294 S.C. 9, 11 , 362 S.E.2d 176, 177 (1987) (Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit.”). *539 Kunja, however, contends that because Rogers sought compensation in the 1990 Claim for an occupational disease caused by exposure to chemicals, the 1993 Claim is barred by res judicata because it too involves a claim of an occupational disease caused by exposure to chemicals.

2018Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 163 , 452 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The doctrine of res judicata originates from the principles that public interest requires an end to litigation and that no one should be sued twice for the same cause of action."); id. ("The res judicata defense requires a showing of three essential elements: (1) the prior judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matters properly included in the first action."); id. at 163-64 , 452 S.E.2d at 14 ("Under th

2018Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 163 , 452 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The doctrine of res judicata originates from the principles that public interest requires an end to litigation and that no one should be sued twice for the same cause of action."); id. ("The res judicata defense requires a showing of three essential elements: (1) the prior judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matters properly included in the first action."); id. at 163-64 , 452 S.E.2d at 14 ("Under th

2013See Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 464 , 649 S.E.2d 72, 81 (Ct.App.2007) (“Res judicata precludes parties from subsequently relitigating issues actually litigated and those that might have been litigated in a prior action”); Richardson v. Richardson, 309 S.C. 31, 35 , 419 S.E.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1992) (upholding the family court’s ruling that the “issue of alimony was res judicata and could not be relitigated and it was the court’s duty to effect compliance with the agreement as best as possible” when husband contended he could not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement requiring him

2013See Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 464 , 649 S.E.2d 72, 81 (Ct.App.2007) (“Res judicata precludes parties from subsequently relitigating issues actually litigated and those that might have been litigated in a prior action”); Richardson v. Richardson, 309 S.C. 31, 35 , 419 S.E.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1992) (upholding the family court’s ruling that the “issue of alimony was res judicata and could not be relitigated and it was the court’s duty to effect compliance with the agreement as best as possible” when husband contended he could not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement requiring him

2004As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Armstrong and Chamberlain on the res judicata defense: Id. ; Pye v. Aycock , 325 S.C. 426, 432 , 480 S.E.2d 455, 458 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding, in determining whether res judicata applies, the identity of the parties in the first lawsuit also includes persons in privity with the named parties); Richburg v. Baughman , 290 S.C. 431, 434 , 351 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1986) (“‘Privity’ as used in the context of res judicata . . . does not embrace relationships between persons or entities, but rather it deals with a person’s relationship to the subject matter of

2004As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Armstrong and Chamberlain on the res judicata defense: Id. ; Pye v. Aycock , 325 S.C. 426, 432 , 480 S.E.2d 455, 458 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding, in determining whether res judicata applies, the identity of the parties in the first lawsuit also includes persons in privity with the named parties); Richburg v. Baughman , 290 S.C. 431, 434 , 351 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1986) (“‘Privity’ as used in the context of res judicata . . . does not embrace relationships between persons or entities, but rather it deals with a person’s relationship to the subject matter of

2012See Basnight, 346 S.C. at 248-49 , 551 S.E.2d at 278 (citing Griggs v. Griggs, 214 S.C. 177, 184 , 51 S.E.2d 622, 626 (1949)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, without fraud or collusion, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies.” (emphasis added)); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982 & Supp. 2012) (conditioning the extinguishment of the second claim on the validity and finality of the prior judgment); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1) cmt. j (1982 & Supp.2012) (discussi

2012See Basnight, 346 S.C. at 248-49 , 551 S.E.2d at 278 (citing Griggs v. Griggs, 214 S.C. 177, 184 , 51 S.E.2d 622, 626 (1949)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, without fraud or collusion, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies.” (emphasis added)); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982 & Supp. 2012) (conditioning the extinguishment of the second claim on the validity and finality of the prior judgment); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1) cmt. j (1982 & Supp.2012) (discussi

2024Id. at 538, 756 S.E.2d at 907 .

2024Id. at 538, 756 S.E.2d at 907 .

2014Judy, 393 S.C. at 167 , 712 S.E.2d at 412 ; Garris, 333 S.C. at 449 , 511 S.E.2d at 57 ; Clark v. Aiken Cnty.

2014Judy, 393 S.C. at 167 , 712 S.E.2d at 412 ; Garris, 333 S.C. at 449 , 511 S.E.2d at 57 ; Clark v. Aiken Cnty.

2011Because Judge Goodstein’s order constitutes a final adjudication regarding the validity of the commitment proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata precludes Appellant from asserting any challenge to the commitment orders. 8 See Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 308 S.C. 467 , 419 S.E.2d 217 (1992) (recognizing that in order to bar subsequent lawsuit based on res judicata, the following elements must be proven: (1) identity of the parties; (2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue in the former suit). 9 Additionally, we disagree -with Appellant’s a

2011Because Judge Goodstein’s order constitutes a final adjudication regarding the validity of the commitment proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata precludes Appellant from asserting any challenge to the commitment orders. 8 See Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 308 S.C. 467 , 419 S.E.2d 217 (1992) (recognizing that in order to bar subsequent lawsuit based on res judicata, the following elements must be proven: (1) identity of the parties; (2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue in the former suit). 9 Additionally, we disagree -with Appellant’s a

2025Found. v. Greenville County, 401 S.C. 377, 385 , 737 S.E.2d 502 , 506 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties." (quoting Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 172 , 712 S.E.2d 408, 414 (2011))); id. at 393, 737 S.E.2d at 506 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit." (quoting Judy, at 160, 712 S.E.2d a

2025Found. v. Greenville County, 401 S.C. 377, 385 , 737 S.E.2d 502 , 506 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties." (quoting Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 172 , 712 S.E.2d 408, 414 (2011))); id. at 393, 737 S.E.2d at 506 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit." (quoting Judy, at 160, 712 S.E.2d a

2024See id. at 105, 780 S.E.2d at 617 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, '[a] litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit.'" (quoting Plum Creek Dev.

2024Co., 334 S.C. at 34 , 512 S.E.2d at 109 )); id. at 106 n.7, 780 S.E.2d at 618 n.7 ("South Carolina courts have used at least four tests to determine when a claim should have been raised in the first suit: (1) when there is identity of the subject matter in both cases; (2) when the first and second cases involve the same primary right held by the plaintiff and one primary wrong committed by the defendant; (3) when there is the same evidence in both cases; and recently, (4) when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the prior action." (quoting James F.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2024See Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty., 426 S.C. 175, 182 , 826 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2019) ("A trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend if the party opposing the amendment can show a valid reason for denying the motion."); id. at 182 , 826 S.E.2d at 588 ("In rare cases . . . a trial court may deny a motion to amend if the amendment would be clearly futile."); RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled at trial in order to be pursued on appeal."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.

2022See Palmetto Homes, Inc. v. Bradley, 357 S.C. 485, 494-95 , 593 S.E.2d 480, 485 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining the doctrine of res judicata may operate to bar claims previously arbitrated or subject to arbitration from being reasserted in a subsequent lawsuit); S.C.

2022See Palmetto Homes, Inc. v. Bradley, 357 S.C. 485, 494-95 , 593 S.E.2d 480, 485 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining the doctrine of res judicata may operate to bar claims previously arbitrated or subject to arbitration from being reasserted in a subsequent lawsuit); S.C.

2018Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 163 , 452 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The doctrine of res judicata originates from the principles that public interest requires an end to litigation and that no one should be sued twice for the same cause of action."); id. ("The res judicata defense requires a showing of three essential elements: (1) the prior judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matters properly included in the first action."); id. at 163-64 , 452 S.E.2d at 14 ("Under th

2018Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 163 , 452 S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The doctrine of res judicata originates from the principles that public interest requires an end to litigation and that no one should be sued twice for the same cause of action."); id. ("The res judicata defense requires a showing of three essential elements: (1) the prior judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matters properly included in the first action."); id. at 163-64 , 452 S.E.2d at 14 ("Under th

2015See Crestwood Golf Club, Inc. v. Potter, 328 S.C. 201, 212 , 493 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) ("For a claim to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, identity of parties is necessary.").

2015See Crestwood Golf Club, Inc. v. Potter, 328 S.C. 201, 212 , 493 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) ("For a claim to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, identity of parties is necessary.").

2013See Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 464 , 649 S.E.2d 72, 81 (Ct.App.2007) (“Res judicata precludes parties from subsequently relitigating issues actually litigated and those that might have been litigated in a prior action”); Richardson v. Richardson, 309 S.C. 31, 35 , 419 S.E.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1992) (upholding the family court’s ruling that the “issue of alimony was res judicata and could not be relitigated and it was the court’s duty to effect compliance with the agreement as best as possible” when husband contended he could not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement requiring him

2013See Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 464 , 649 S.E.2d 72, 81 (Ct.App.2007) (“Res judicata precludes parties from subsequently relitigating issues actually litigated and those that might have been litigated in a prior action”); Richardson v. Richardson, 309 S.C. 31, 35 , 419 S.E.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App.1992) (upholding the family court’s ruling that the “issue of alimony was res judicata and could not be relitigated and it was the court’s duty to effect compliance with the agreement as best as possible” when husband contended he could not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement requiring him

2012See Basnight, 346 S.C. at 248-49 , 551 S.E.2d at 278 (citing Griggs v. Griggs, 214 S.C. 177, 184 , 51 S.E.2d 622, 626 (1949)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, without fraud or collusion, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies.” (emphasis added)); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982 & Supp. 2012) (conditioning the extinguishment of the second claim on the validity and finality of the prior judgment); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1) cmt. j (1982 & Supp.2012) (discussi

2012See Basnight, 346 S.C. at 248-49 , 551 S.E.2d at 278 (citing Griggs v. Griggs, 214 S.C. 177, 184 , 51 S.E.2d 622, 626 (1949)) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, without fraud or collusion, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies.” (emphasis added)); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(1) (1982 & Supp. 2012) (conditioning the extinguishment of the second claim on the validity and finality of the prior judgment); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(1) cmt. j (1982 & Supp.2012) (discussi

2012In Mr. T v. Ms. T, the plaintiff filed a paternity action naming his ex-wife as a defendant and alleging that she committed fraud in leading him to believe he was the biological father of her children. 378 S.C. 127, 130-32 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 415-16 (Ct.App.2008).

2012In Mr. T v. Ms. T, the plaintiff filed a paternity action naming his ex-wife as a defendant and alleging that she committed fraud in leading him to believe he was the biological father of her children. 378 S.C. 127, 130-32 , 662 S.E.2d 413, 415-16 (Ct.App.2008).