issue preclusion doctrine in Oregon

2019One of those requirements is that the "issue in the two proceedings is identical," id ., and generally the party invoking issue preclusion "bears the responsibility of placing into evidence the prior judgment and sufficient portions of the record *** to enable the court to reach that conclusion with the requisite degree of certainty." Barackman v. Anderson , 214 Or.

2019The party asserting issue preclusion bears the burden of placing into evidence the prior judgment and sufficient portions of the record for the court to conclude " 'with the requisite degree of certainty' " that " 'an identical issue *328 was actually decided in [the] previous action.' " Barackman v. Anderson , 214 Or.

2016A. The Doctrine of Issue Preclusion Oregon recognizes a common-law doctrine of issue preclusion, which “‘arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.’” Barackman v. Anderson, 338 Or 365, 368 , 109 P3d 370 (2005) (quoting Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993)).

2016A. The Doctrine of Issue Preclusion Oregon recognizes a common-law doctrine of issue preclusion, which “‘arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.’” Barackman v. Anderson, 338 Or 365, 368 , 109 P3d 370 (2005) (quoting Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993)).

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2025In Guyton, the defendant was charged with driving under the influ- ence of drugs (DUID) and reckless driving. 286 Or at 817 .

2025“For whatever else that constitutional guarantee may embrace, it surely protects a man who has been acquit- ted from having to ‘run the gauntlet’ a second time.” Id. at 445-46 (quoting Green, 355 US at 190 ; citation omitted); see also Mozorosky, 277 Or at 498 (applying Ashe); Yeager, 557 US at 122 (holding that the issue preclusion doctrine can prevent retrial on counts on which the jury in the first trial was unable to reach a verdict). 180 State v. Dodge This court followed Ashe in Guyton.

2025“For whatever else that constitutional guarantee may embrace, it surely protects a man who has been acquit- ted from having to ‘run the gauntlet’ a second time.” Id. at 445-46 (quoting Green, 355 US at 190 ; citation omitted); see also Mozorosky, 277 Or at 498 (applying Ashe); Yeager, 557 US at 122 (holding that the issue preclusion doctrine can prevent retrial on counts on which the jury in the first trial was unable to reach a verdict). 180 State v. Dodge This court followed Ashe in Guyton.

2025Defendant used the issue preclusion cases Cite as 373 Or 156 (2025) 183 to argue that, even though he had been convicted of those counts, he could not be reprosecuted for them because “fac- tual issues in those counts may have already been decided against the state in the first trial.” As defendant acknowledged both in the Court of Appeals and in this court, the issue preclusion doctrine is generally used when two counts overlap; that is, when the state’s factual basis for one count has a fact in common with the state’s factual basis for another count.

2019Further, in reviewing the court's award of prejudgment interest for legal error, Tasaki v. Moriarty , 233 Or.

2018We determined that it did, noting that, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, "[i]f the insurer were seeking recovery from the defendant for the overpayment of the benefits in a civil proceeding, it would not be entitled to judgment against defendant" because "the amount claimed by the insurer had been litigated and adjudicated in the administrative hearing, and defendant [had] paid that obligation." Id. at 253 , 908 P.2d 329 .

2018We determined that it did, noting that, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, "[i]f the insurer were seeking recovery from the defendant for the overpayment of the benefits in a civil proceeding, it would not be entitled to judgment against defendant" because "the amount claimed by the insurer had been litigated and adjudicated in the administrative hearing, and defendant [had] paid that obligation." Id. at 253 , 908 P.2d 329 .

2018We concluded that, "[b]ecause the state's issue preclusion instruction removed *440 an element from the jury's consideration in violation of defendant's right to a jury trial under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the trial court erred in giving the state's instruction." Id. at 194 , 335 P.3d 1266 .

2018We concluded that, "[b]ecause the state's issue preclusion instruction removed *440 an element from the jury's consideration in violation of defendant's right to a jury trial under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the trial court erred in giving the state's instruction." Id. at 194 , 335 P.3d 1266 .

2015See, e.g., Clemente, 227 Or App at 440 (concluding that the reviewing court “lackfed] authority to consider” the defendant’s issue preclusion claim as alternative basis for affirmance, where that claim was not raised in the defendant’s answer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment); Fox v. Collins, 213 Or App 451, 460-61 , 162 P3d 998 , rev den, 343 Or 223 (2007) (rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the trial court should affirm summary judgment in their favor based on a statute of limitations defense that was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in their answer and noting th

2015See, e.g., Clemente, 227 Or App at 440 (concluding that the reviewing court “lackfed] authority to consider” the defendant’s issue preclusion claim as alternative basis for affirmance, where that claim was not raised in the defendant’s answer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment); Fox v. Collins, 213 Or App 451, 460-61 , 162 P3d 998 , rev den, 343 Or 223 (2007) (rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the trial court should affirm summary judgment in their favor based on a statute of limitations defense that was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in their answer and noting th

2015See, e.g., Clemente, 227 Or App at 440 (concluding that the reviewing court “lackfed] authority to consider” the defendant’s issue preclusion claim as alternative basis for affirmance, where that claim was not raised in the defendant’s answer, motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment); Fox v. Collins, 213 Or App 451, 460-61 , 162 P3d 998 , rev den, 343 Or 223 (2007) (rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the trial court should affirm summary judgment in their favor based on a statute of limitations defense that was not pleaded as an affirmative defense in their answer and noting th

2014See Nelson, 318 Or at 104 (under issue-preclusion doctrine, a prior decision “may preclude relitigation of the issue” (emphasis added)); State v. Romanov, 210 Or App 198, 202 , 149 P3d 1224 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 633 (2007) (“Issue preclusion can prevent * * * the relitigation of a factual issue decided in a prior proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)).

2014See Nelson, 318 Or at 104 (under issue-preclusion doctrine, a prior decision “may preclude relitigation of the issue” (emphasis added)); State v. Romanov, 210 Or App 198, 202 , 149 P3d 1224 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 633 (2007) (“Issue preclusion can prevent * * * the relitigation of a factual issue decided in a prior proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)).

2014In response, and citing State ex rel State Scholarship Com’n v. Magar, 288 Or 635 , 607 P2d 167 (1980), plaintiff again argues that an offer of judgment operates to admit the relevant allegations of the complaint.

2014In response, and citing State ex rel State Scholarship Com’n v. Magar, 288 Or 635 , 607 P2d 167 (1980), plaintiff again argues that an offer of judgment operates to admit the relevant allegations of the complaint.

2014See Nelson, 318 Or at 104 (under issue-preclusion doctrine, a prior decision “may preclude relitigation of the issue” (emphasis added)); State v. Romanov, 210 Or App 198, 202 , 149 P3d 1224 (2006), rev den, 342 Or 633 (2007) (“Issue preclusion can prevent * * * the relitigation of a factual issue decided in a prior proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)).

2013The doctrine of issue preclusion “applies to subsequent lawsuits and not to separate claims within the same lawsuit.” Westwood Corp. v. Bowen, 108 Or App 310, 315 , 815 P2d 1282 (1991), rev dismissed, 312 Or 589 (1992) (emphasis in original).

2013The doctrine of issue preclusion “applies to subsequent lawsuits and not to separate claims within the same lawsuit.” Westwood Corp. v. Bowen, 108 Or App 310, 315 , 815 P2d 1282 (1991), rev dismissed, 312 Or 589 (1992) (emphasis in original).

2013And, although it is normally inappropriate as a matter of law to quiet title where, as here, it appears that not all persons who have or may have an interest in the property are parties to a proceeding, see State ex rel Dept. of Trans, v. Tolke, 36 Or App 751 , 753 n 2, 586 P2d 791 (1978), such nonjoinder will not serve as a basis for reversing a trial court’s quiet title judgment when the losing party fails to properly assign error to the nonjoinder.

2013And, although it is normally inappropriate as a matter of law to quiet title where, as here, it appears that not all persons who have or may have an interest in the property are parties to a proceeding, see State ex rel Dept. of Trans, v. Tolke, 36 Or App 751 , 753 n 2, 586 P2d 791 (1978), such nonjoinder will not serve as a basis for reversing a trial court’s quiet title judgment when the losing party fails to properly assign error to the nonjoinder.

2012For example, in SAIF v. Ricker, 184 Or App 53, 55-56 , 55 P3d 532 (2002), SAIF issued a denial of the claimant’s combined condition effective December 31, 1998, because the accepted injury ceased to remain the major contributing cause of the claimant’s disability as of that date.

2012For example, in SAIF v. Ricker, 184 Or App 53, 55-56 , 55 P3d 532 (2002), SAIF issued a denial of the claimant’s combined condition effective December 31, 1998, because the accepted injury ceased to remain the major contributing cause of the claimant’s disability as of that date.

2010State of Oregon v. Dewey, 206 Or 496, 504 , 292 P2d 799 (1956).

2010State of Oregon v. Dewey, 206 Or 496, 504 , 292 P2d 799 (1956).