collateral estop-pel doctrine in Florida

2014The doctrine of collateral estop-pel, also known as issue preclusion and estoppel by judgment, “bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties in connection with a different cause of action.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004).

2006The doctrine of collateral estop-pel “bars relitigation of the same issues between the same parties in connection with a different cause of action.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004).

1989Just as it is obvious that no such result would be desirable, we think it clear that under Rosenthal it is neither required nor permitted. .A corollary to the doctrine of collateral estop-pel is the doctrine of mutuality of parties which holds that strangers to a prior litigation — those who were neither parties nor in privity with a party — are not bound by the results of that litigation. [e.s.j Trucking Employees, 450 So.2d at 845 . .

1988In Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843, 845 (Fla.1984), our supreme court stated: We recognize that the federal courts have abandoned the requirement of mutuality of parties as a prerequisite to asserting the doctrine of collateral estop-pel.

2016See State v.. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003).

2015See Ramos, 789 So.2d at 1227 (“[A]ppellant’s complaint did not set forth sufficient allegations regarding the bar proceedings to enable the trial judge to address the merits of the collateral estop-pel defense asserted in appellees’ motion to dismiss.”); Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So.2d 30, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding affirmative defense did not appear on the face of the complaint, noting, “[t]he complaint is permissibly sketchy”); see also Grove Isle Ass’n v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Because affirmative defenses may be avoided by facts

2015See Ramos, 789 So.2d at 1227 (“[A]ppellant’s complaint did not set forth sufficient allegations regarding the bar proceedings to enable the trial judge to address the merits of the collateral estop-pel defense asserted in appellees’ motion to dismiss.”); Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So.2d 30, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding affirmative defense did not appear on the face of the complaint, noting, “[t]he complaint is permissibly sketchy”); see also Grove Isle Ass’n v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Because affirmative defenses may be avoided by facts

2015See Ramos, 789 So.2d at 1227 (“[A]ppellant’s complaint did not set forth sufficient allegations regarding the bar proceedings to enable the trial judge to address the merits of the collateral estop-pel defense asserted in appellees’ motion to dismiss.”); Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., 869 So.2d 30, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (finding affirmative defense did not appear on the face of the complaint, noting, “[t]he complaint is permissibly sketchy”); see also Grove Isle Ass’n v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So.3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Because affirmative defenses may be avoided by facts

2006However, “collateral estoppel does not apply if the verdict could be grounded upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.” State v. Strong, 593 So.2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992).

1996See Carson v. Gibson, 638 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 645 So.2d 451 (Fla.1994) (legal malpractice action barred under doctrine of collateral estoppel where same issues were tided as affirmative defenses in non-jury tidal action to foreclose attorney’s charging lien).