res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion doctrine (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion doctrine in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Grava v. Parkman Townshipgreen
ohio · 1995 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2005–2025
2 sentences

2025AJZ’s Hauling at ¶ 16; Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381 (1995).

2008However, in Grava v. Parkman Twp. , 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 1995-Ohio-331 , the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that the doctrine of res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion (referred to as collateral estoppel.) The difference between the two is that res judicata requires an identity of the parties and causes of action whereas collateral estoppel may have a preclusive effect where the cause of action in a subsequent lawsuit is different.

25
State v. C.H.green
ohioctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026State v. C.L.H., 2019-Ohio-3786, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Daniel v. Williams green
ohioctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2023Id.

12023–2023
In re Ohio Power Co. green
ohio · 2015
1 sentence

2022In re Ohio Power Co., 144 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2015-Ohio-2056 , ¶ 20.

12022–2022
Grava v. Parkman Twp. green
ohio · 1995
1 sentence

2008However, in Grava v. Parkman Twp. , 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , 1995-Ohio-331 , the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that the doctrine of res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion (referred to as collateral estoppel.) The difference between the two is that res judicata requires an identity of the parties and causes of action whereas collateral estoppel may have a preclusive effect where the cause of action in a subsequent lawsuit is different.

12008–2008

Where else courts name it

OH 8 (2005–2026) ID 3 (2013–2014) CA 2 (2015–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check