res judicata doctrine in Alaska

2018Co. , 303 P.3d 493 , 497 (Alaska 2013) ("[A] fundamental tenet of the res judicata doctrine is that it precludes relitigation between the same parties not only of claims that were raised in the initial proceeding, but also of those relevant claims that could have been raised then." (quoting Calhoun v. Greening , 636 P.2d 69 , 72 (Alaska 1981) (alteration in original) ) ).

2017Co. , 303 P.3d 493 , 497 (Alaska 2013) ("[A] fundamental tenet of the res judicata doctrine is that it precludes relitigation between the same parties not only of claims that were raised in the initial proceeding, but also of those relevant claims that could have been raised then." (alteration in original) (quoting Calhoun v. Greening , 636 P.2d 69 , 72 (Alaska 1981) )). 907 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1995).

2018Co. , 303 P.3d 493 , 497 (Alaska 2013) ("[A] fundamental tenet of the res judicata doctrine is that it precludes relitigation between the same parties not only of claims that were raised in the initial proceeding, but also of those relevant claims that could have been raised then." (quoting Calhoun v. Greening , 636 P.2d 69 , 72 (Alaska 1981) (alteration in original) ) ).

2017Co. , 303 P.3d 493 , 497 (Alaska 2013) ("[A] fundamental tenet of the res judicata doctrine is that it precludes relitigation between the same parties not only of claims that were raised in the initial proceeding, but also of those relevant claims that could have been raised then." (alteration in original) (quoting Calhoun v. Greening , 636 P.2d 69 , 72 (Alaska 1981) )). 907 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1995).

2016Alaskan Crude next argues that “[t]he express purpose of the [unit] was frustrated by the changes made to the drilling conditions that were the subject of the earlier appeals[.]” To the extent Alaskan Crude argues that these drilling conditions constituted “an artificial and irrational economic barrier to exploration,” we rejected that argument in Alaskan Crude’s two prior appeals; in both of them we upheld the decisions of the DNR Commissioner and the Conservation Commission with regard to the requirements for exploration and development.35 The doctrine of res judicata precludes Alaskan Crude

2016Ctr., 203 P.3d 1148, 1155 (Alaska 2009) (“Because [the appellant] failed to make this argument prior to his motion for reconsideration, it is waived.”). 10 Janes v. Alaska Railbelt Marine, LLC, 309 P.3d 867, 876 (Alaska 2013). 11 See Dickerson v. Goodman, 161 P.3d 1205, 1208 (Alaska 2007) (“Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim bars a party from asserting it in subsequent suits.”). 12 See Plumber v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 936 P.2d 163, 166 (Alaska 1997) (explaining that under the doctrine of res judicata “a final judgment in a prior action bars a subsequent action”). -9- 1573 predict

2016Alaskan Crude next argues that “[t]he express purpose of the [unit] was frustrated by the changes made to the drilling conditions that were the subject of the earlier appeals[.]” To the extent Alaskan Crude argues that these drilling conditions constituted “an artificial and irrational economic barrier to exploration,” we rejected that argument in Alaskan Crude’s two prior appeals; in both of them we upheld the decisions of the DNR Commissioner and the Conservation Commission with regard to the requirements for exploration and development.35 The doctrine of res judicata precludes Alaskan Crude

2009Plumber v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 936 P.2d 163, 166 (Alaska 1997) (explaining the doctrine of res judicata "provides that a final judgment in a prior action bars a subsequent action if the prior judgment was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, [and] (3) in a dispute between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause of action" (citing Blake v. Gilbert, 702 P.2d 631, 634-35 (Alaska 1985))). 40 .

1992Co., 604 P.2d 4, 8 (Alaska 1979) ("Although the principles of issue preclusion have been developed in a judicial setting, we agree with the modern and generally accepted view that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to adjudicative determinations made by administrative agencies.” (Footnotes omitted.)) 5 .

1991Co., 604 P.2d 4, 8 (Alaska 1979), we said, Although the principles of issue preclusion have been developed in a judicial setting, we agree with the modern and now generally accepted view that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to adjudicative determinations made by administrative agencies. 19 .

1999DeNardo, 740 P.2d at 455 -56 (quoting State v. Smith, 720 P.2d 40, 41 (Alaska 1986)). 21 .

1990In DeNardo v. State, 740 P.2d 453, 455-56 (Alaska 1987), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 919 , 108 S.Ct. 277 , 98 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988), we discussed the subject of res judicata, noting the following principles: Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits of the controversy bars subsequent actions between the same parties upon the same claim.

2018See Girdwood Mining Co. v. Comsult LLC, 329 P.3d 194, 200 (Alaska 2014) (“The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, ‘prevents a party from suing on a claim which has been previously litigated to a final judgment by that party . . . and precludes the assertion by such parties of any legal theory, cause of action, or defense which could have been asserted in that action.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting McElroy v. Kennedy, 74 P.3d 903, 906 (Alaska 2003))).

2014Gladden argued in his prior appeal that the City did not have authority to tax him and that therefore the City could not validly foreclose on his property or hold superior title.16 Gladden also challenged the superior 11 McElroy v. Kennedy, 74 P.3d 903, 906-07 (Alaska 2003) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 Patterson, 303 P.3d at 497 (citation omitted). 13 Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 Gladden v. City of Dillingham, Mem.

1999DeNardo, 740 P.2d at 455 -56 (quoting State v. Smith, 720 P.2d 40, 41 (Alaska 1986)). 21 .

1988We described the claim preclusive effect of a prior judgment in State v. Smith, 720 P.2d 40, 41 (Alaska 1986), as follows: Under the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion), a judgment on the merits of a controversy bars subsequent suits between the same parties asserting the same claim for relief when the matter raised was or could have been decided in the first suit.

1990Drickersen v. Drickersen, 546 P.2d 162, 169 (Alaska 1976) (quoting IB J.

1977In Drickersen v. Drickersen, 546 P.2d 162, 169 (Alaska 1976), we stated: Res judicata is a doctrine judicial in origin which has as its primary objective claim preclusion or judicial finality.

1988Pankratz v. State, Department of Highways, 652 P.2d 68, 74 (Alaska 1982); Calhoun v. Greening, 636 P.2d 69, 71-72 (Alaska 1981).

1986Pankratz v. State, Department of Highways, 652 P.2d 68, 74 (Alaska 1982); Calhoun v. Greening, 636 P.2d 69, 71-72 (Alaska 1981).

2017He relies primarily on Ferguson v. State, Department of Corrections,31 but Ferguson is clearly distinguishable because its outcome rested on procedural rules related to class actions.32 Ferguson involved a challenge to the drug-testing procedures at the Palmer Correctional Center.33 Ferguson was a class member of an earlier class action that had addressed drug-testing procedures in Alaska prisons, even though he had not been incarcerated at the time of the class action; the superior court held that the class action barred Ferguson from bringing his lawsuit.34 We reversed this decision because

2006Sengupta I, 21 P.3d at 1257 .

2016Alaskan Crude next argues that “[t]he express purpose of the [unit] was frustrated by the changes made to the drilling conditions that were the subject of the earlier appeals[.]” To the extent Alaskan Crude argues that these drilling conditions constituted “an artificial and irrational economic barrier to exploration,” we rejected that argument in Alaskan Crude’s two prior appeals; in both of them we upheld the decisions of the DNR Commissioner and the Conservation Commission with regard to the requirements for exploration and development.35 The doctrine of res judicata precludes Alaskan Crude

1998Blake v. Gilbert, 702 P.2d 631, 634-35 (Alaska 1985), overruled on other grounds by Bibo v. Jeffrey’s Restaurant, 770 P.2d 290, 295 (Alaska 1989).

2025Co., 303 P.3d 493, 497 (Alaska 2013))). 39 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008). 40 Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

2025Co., 303 P.3d 493, 497 (Alaska 2013))). 39 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 891 (2008). 40 Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

2025Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added) (quoting W.

2025The superior court presumably adopted this argument in dismissing the claims.37 The res judicata doctrine — otherwise known as claim preclusion — “bars litigation . . . of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.”38 As with issue preclusion, discussed above, “[t]he preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”39 For claim preclusion to apply under federal law, there must be “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.”40 Both the Ninth Circuit and Alaska’s courts follow t

2025The superior court presumably adopted this argument in dismissing the claims.37 The res judicata doctrine — otherwise known as claim preclusion — “bars litigation . . . of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.”38 As with issue preclusion, discussed above, “[t]he preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.”39 For claim preclusion to apply under federal law, there must be “(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.”40 Both the Ninth Circuit and Alaska’s courts follow t

2024The doctrine of res judicata applies when there is “(1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a dispute 5 He served “19 motions of Discovery and Interrogatories” on various judges and state employees, leading the State to move to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. 6 433 P.3d at 1142, 1148 . 7 We note, of course, that the Department of Labor’s administrative proceeding was not required to make a criminal finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 8 Id. -3- 2020 between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause

2024The doctrine of res judicata applies when there is “(1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a dispute 5 He served “19 motions of Discovery and Interrogatories” on various judges and state employees, leading the State to move to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. 6 433 P.3d at 1142, 1148 . 7 We note, of course, that the Department of Labor’s administrative proceeding was not required to make a criminal finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 8 Id. -3- 2020 between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220 , 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040 ; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915 ). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision wil

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision will b

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220 , 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040 ; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915 ). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision wil

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision will b

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220 , 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040 ; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915 ). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision wil

2022Ct. Div., 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 n.7 (Alaska 1975)). 20 Keller, 205 P.3d at 304 (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc., 3 P.3d at 915). -7- 7593 to the judicial hierarchy’ ”21 that “is ‘grounded in the principle of stare decisis’ and ‘akin to the doctrine of res judicata.’ ”22 It “generally ‘prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.’ ”23 “Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision will b

2021Co., 303 P.3d 493, 497 (Alaska 2013) (res judicata); Griswold v. Homer City Council, 428 P.3d 180, 185 (Alaska 2018) (privilege). 16 Municipality of Anchorage v. Holleman, 321 P.3d 378, 381 (Alaska 2014). -6- 7560 cause of action that has already been litigated and decided.”17 “A judgment is given res judicata effect . . . when it is (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a dispute between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause of action.”18 Privies include non-parties who “(1) substantially participated in the control of a part

2021The res judicata doctrine prevents a party from reasserting “a 13 Ebli v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 451 P.3d 382, 386-87 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1030 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Anderson v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 440 P.3d 217, 219 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255, 1267 (Alaska 2016)). 15 Patterson v. Infinity Ins.

2021The res judicata doctrine prevents a party from reasserting “a 13 Ebli v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 451 P.3d 382, 386-87 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1030 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Anderson v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 440 P.3d 217, 219 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255, 1267 (Alaska 2016)). 15 Patterson v. Infinity Ins.

2021The res judicata doctrine prevents a party from reasserting “a 13 Ebli v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 451 P.3d 382, 386-87 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Olson v. City of Hooper Bay, 251 P.3d 1024, 1030 (Alaska 2011)). 14 Anderson v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 440 P.3d 217, 219 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255, 1267 (Alaska 2016)). 15 Patterson v. Infinity Ins.