issue preclusion doctrine in Iowa

2026See Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1981) (listing the requirements of the doctrine of issue preclusion).

2021As to the fourth element of the doctrine of issue preclusion, “the determination made of the issue in the prior action” was not “necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.” Hunter, 300 N.W.2d at 125–26.

2015Co., 232 N.W.2d 527, 532 (Iowa 1975) (reversing where doctrine was raised by motion in limine rather than pleadings); see also Fischer, 654 N.W.2d at 549-50 (concluding petitions could not be construed broadly to encompass the doctrine of issue preclusion and doctrine was not tried by consent). 4 We reverse the district court dismissal of Stacy’s petition to overcome paternity on issue preclusion grounds and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1978Mauer v. Rohde, Iowa, supra; Bertran v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, supra; Goolsby v. Derby, Iowa, 189 N.W.2d 909, 913 .

1989One exception to the issue preclusion doctrine is that “a new determination of the issue is warranted by differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed in the two courts or by the factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between them.” Heidemann, 375 N.W.2d at 667 .

1987Heidemann v. Sweitzer, 375 N.W.2d 665, 667 (Iowa 1985).

2016If, however, the “issue” in the prior proceeding is moré broadly characterized as the extent of insurance coverage under a single contract, issue preclusion would apply under the easelaw. 1 Cf. Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Noways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214, 1222, 1224 (Utah 2000) (claims for additional contract damages beyond time frame of damages sought in original action held barred under doctrine of issue preclusion).

2016Id. at 12 Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214, 1222, 1224 (Utah 2000) (claims for additional contract damages beyond time frame of damages sought in original action held barred under doctrine of issue preclusion).

2014See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. D.J.I., 545 N.W.2d 866, 877 (Iowa 1996) (barring an attorney from relitigating the issues of fraud and misrepresentation, among other issues, in a disciplinary case under the doctrine of issue preclusion).

2014See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. D.J.I., 545 N.W.2d 866, 877 (Iowa 1996) (barring an attorney from relitigat-ing the issues of fraud and misrepresentation, among other issues, in a disciplinary case under the doctrine of issue preclusion).

2026See id.

2022For purposes of our analysis, we will assume the modification proceeding was a “prior action.”4 The doctrine of issue preclusion “prevents a party to a prior action in which a judgment has been rendered from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in the previous action.” Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 577 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Iowa 1998) (citation omitted).

2019See, e.g. , State v. Thomas , 659 N.W.2d 217 , 220-21 (Iowa 2003) (examining defendant's claim that his plea was not knowing and voluntary since he was misinformed during his plea colloquy).

2018See Pavone v. Kirke, 807 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Iowa 2011) (“The doctrine of res judicata includes both claim preclusion and issue preclusion” (citation omitted)).

2017See, e.g., Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Iowa 2006) (“Iowa law is clear that issue preclusion requires that the issue was ‘actually litigated’ in the prior proceeding.”); Leavens v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, No. 11-1636, 2012 WL 2411684 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 27, 2012) (concluding that issue preclusion was inapplicable because the “Fund was not a party to the settlement agreement; it therefore did not have an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue of liability”).

2015The doctrine of issue preclusion “prevents parties to a prior action in which judgment has been entered from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in the previous action.” Fischer v. City of Sioux City, 654 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa 2002) (citing Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1981)).

2015Co., 232 N.W.2d 527, 532 (Iowa 1975) (reversing where doctrine was raised by motion in limine rather than pleadings); see also Fischer, 654 N.W.2d at 549-50 (concluding petitions could not be construed broadly to encompass the doctrine of issue preclusion and doctrine was not tried by consent). 4 We reverse the district court dismissal of Stacy’s petition to overcome paternity on issue preclusion grounds and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2015Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, a re Shelburne Supermarket, Inc., 996 A.2d 230, 235 (Vt. 2010) (same).

2014Servs., Inc., 505 N.W.2d 813, 817 (Iowa 1993) (“Because of the unique statutory framework applying to forcible entry and detainer actions, the issue preclusion analysis in Village Supply Co. v. Iowa Fund, Inc., 312 N.W.2d 551 (Iowa 1981), does not apply.

2007Chief among her reasons is the DMMHA failed to provide a notice to cure, and its failure to do so divested all adjudicative bodies of subject matter jurisdiction so that their findings are void. 20 Generally, a defect in the notice requirements under section 562A.27(1) “deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to hear a forcible entry and detainer action to recover possession of the leased property.” Liberty Manor v. Rinnels, 487 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa 1992).

1999Co., 22 Cal.3d 865 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098, 1102 (1978)).

1999Co., 22 Cal.3d 865 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 285 , 587 P.2d 1098, 1102 (1978)).

1999Notwithstanding this general statement, we have held that a nonparty has had an opportunity to be heard where the party against whom the doctrine of issue preclusion “is defensively invoked has a ‘community of interest with, and adequate representation by, the losing party in the first action.’ ” Opheim v. American Interinsurance Exch., 430 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1988) (quoting Clemmer v. Hartford Ins.

1996See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979).

1996See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 645 , 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979).

1994Harris v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 818, 819 (Iowa 1991).

1993Hall v. Barrett, 412 N.W.2d. 648, 650 (Iowa App.1987).

1992See Bascom v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 395 N.W.2d 879, 881 (Iowa 1986) (according to doctrine of issue preclusion, when parties have litigated a particular issue in a prior proceeding, they are barred from further litigating that issue in a subsequent proceeding).

1986According to the doctrine of issue preclusion, when parties in a prior action have litigated a particular issue of law or fact they are barred from litigating the same issue in a subsequent action. 3 Kraft v. El View Construction, 394 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Iowa 1986); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).