litigation claim in Vermont

2026Res judicata will bar “the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the ‘parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.”’ Berlin Convalescent Ctr. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 (1992) (quoting Berisha v. Hardy, 144 Vt. 136, 138 (1984)).

2026Res judicata, sometimes known as claim preclusion, “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Berlin Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 (1992) (internal quotation omitted).

2025Res Judicata Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375, 379 , 683 A.2d 731, 734 (1996) (citation omitted).

2025Res Judicata Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375, 379 , 683 A.2d 731, 734 (1996) (citation omitted).

2026Res judicata will bar “the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the ‘parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.”’ Berlin Convalescent Ctr. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 (1992) (quoting Berisha v. Hardy, 144 Vt. 136, 138 (1984)).

2021It “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the ‘parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.’ ” Berlin Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 (1992) (quoting Berisha v. Hardy, 144 Vt. 136, 138 (1984)).

2026Claims need not be actually litigated in the earlier proceeding to be barred and, instead, res judicata “bars parties from litigating claims or causes of action that were or should have been raised in previous litigation.” Merrilees v. Treasurer, 159 Vt. 623, 624 (1992) (mem.).

2018“The doctrine does not require that claims must have been actually litigated in an earlier proceeding; rather, res judicata ‘bars parties from litigating claims or causes of action that were or should have been raised in previous litigation.’” Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375, 380 (1996) (citing Merrilees v. Treasurer, 159 Vt. 623, 624 (1992) (mem.).

2013Claim preclusion (res judicata) generally bars the litigation of a claim if there exists an earlier final judgment in which “the parties, subject matter[,] and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Russell v. Atkins, 165 Vt. 176, 179 (1996) (internal citations omitted).

2013Claim preclusion (res judicata) generally bars the litigation of a claim if there exists an earlier final judgment in which “the parties, subject matter[,] and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Russell v. Atkins, 165 Vt. 176, 179 (1996) (internal citations omitted).

2013Corp., 172 Vt. 14, 20 , 769 A.2d 668, 673 (2001) (“The doctrine of res judicata . . . bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in *331 which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical!’ (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)).

2013Corp., 172 Vt. 14, 20 , 769 A.2d 668, 673 (2001) (“The doctrine of res judicata . . . bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in *331 which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical!’ (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)).

1996“It bars not only issues actually litigated but also those which ‘should have been raised in previous litigation.’” Id. at 56, 615 A.2d at 143 -44 (quoting American Trucking Ass’ns v. Conway, 152 Vt. 363, 370 , 566 A.2d 1323, 1328 (1989)).

1996“It bars not only issues actually litigated but also those which ‘should have been raised in previous litigation.’” Id. at 56, 615 A.2d at 143 -44 (quoting American Trucking Ass’ns v. Conway, 152 Vt. 363, 370 , 566 A.2d 1323, 1328 (1989)).

2026This is true not only of issues that “actually were litigated but also of those that should have been raised.” Daiello v. Town of Vernon, 2018 VT 17, ¶ 12 , 207 Vt. 139 , 184 A.3d 1192 . ¶ 31.

2018See Daiello v. Town of Vernon, 2018 VT 17, ¶ 12 (“Claim preclusion bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2023See, e.g., Wesco, Inc. v. Sorrell, 2004 VT 102, ¶ 21 , 177 Vt. 287 , 865 A.2d 350 (“Exempting disclosure of documents relevant to ongoing litigation outside the discovery process prevents the issuance of conflicting and inconsistent judgments in competing courts.”).

2023See, e.g., Wesco, Inc. v. Sorrell, 2004 VT 102, ¶ 21 , 177 Vt. 287 , 865 A.2d 350 (“Exempting disclosure of documents relevant to ongoing litigation outside the discovery process prevents the issuance of conflicting and inconsistent judgments in competing courts.”).

2024See State v. Carroll, 171 Vt. 395 , 397–98 (2000) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, generally bars the litigation of a claim if there exists an earlier final judgment in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” (internal quotation omitted)).

2023“By ‘preclud[ing] parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate,’” claim preclusion “protect[s] against ‘the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[es] judicial resources, and foste[rs] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.’” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 4 Plaintiffs contend in a post-hearing memorandum that the City waived its res judicata claim at oral argument.

2021“Res judicata bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” Poon II, 2018 VT 27, ¶ 11 (quotation omitted).

2011The court, quoting Larter & Sons v. Dinkler Hotels Co., 199 F.2d 854, 855 (5th Cir. 1952), observed preliminarily that dismissal on the basis of an affirmative defense such as res judicata may be proper where “the facts are admitted or are not controverted or are conclusively established so that nothing further can be developed by a trial of the issue.” The court went on to correctly state that the doctrine of res judicata “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or s

2011According to plaintiff, this was an “unconstitutional prior restraint on his right to free speech” and an “unconstitutional act of retaliation.” The trial court concluded that “[t]his claim ha[d] no merit because [defendants are absolutely immune from liability for filing a motion with the court.” “Litigation immunity is the common law doctrine that protects parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges as participants in the judicial process from liability for acts and conduct related to a proceeding.” Eckert v. LVNV Funding LLC, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1102 (E.D.

2011We recognized an equitable exception to the American Rule rule in In re Gadhue, 149 Vt. 322, 328-30 (1987).

2008See Cold Springs Farm Dev., Inc. v. Ball, 163 Vt. 466, 472 , 661 A.2d 89, 93 (1995) (“Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims or causes of action which were or might properly have been litigated in a previous action.”); Berlin Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 , 615 A.2d 141, 143 (1992) (Res judicata “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” (quotation omitted)). ¶ 41.

2008See Cold Springs Farm Dev., Inc. v. Ball, 163 Vt. 466, 472 , 661 A.2d 89, 93 (1995) (“Claim preclusion bars litigation of claims or causes of action which were or might properly have been litigated in a previous action.”); Berlin Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56 , 615 A.2d 141, 143 (1992) (Res judicata “bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” (quotation omitted)). ¶ 41.