Cited by

(noting that fundamental to the doctrine of res judicata is the idea that “a right, question[,] or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties”) (quotations omitted).

Second, “[R]es judicata prevents either party from relitigating claims arising from the original circumstances, even under new legal theories.”

Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “applies to specific legal issues that have been adjudicated.”

the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; 4 (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.’” Brown- Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., ()

Res judicata requires a party “to assert all alternative theories of recovery in the initial action.” (quotation 6 omitted).

DECISION Fundamental to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is the notion that a “right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties.” (quotation omitted).

See Deutsche Bank Nat’l (discussing the district court’s “considerable discretion” to expand or to limit the scope of an eviction action); d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004) (“[A] right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.” (quotation omitted)); -41 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that challe

See Walsh, d at 602; Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin, 265 Minn. 391, 394, Mitchell v. City of St.

Creamery Co., 243 Minn. 230, 233–34, (emphasis added); (“[T]he focus [when applying the doctrine of res judicata] is on whether [its] application would work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine[ is] urged.”).

d 829, 837 (Minn. 2004).

But collateral estoppel is also an equitable remedy that we need not rigidly apply; instead, we must consider whether its application “would work an injustice on the party against whom the [doctrine is] urged.”

“Res judicata is a finality doctrine that mandates that there be an end to litigation.” Hauschildt 6 v. Beckingham

Res judicata can bar a claim in a subsequent action when: “(1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; [and] (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter.”

Although the doctrine of res judicata should not be applied rigidly in contravention of public policy, the doctrine “reflects courts’ disfavor with multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action and wasteful litigation,” Wilson, d at 198 .