What is the difference between stare decisis and res judicata

If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless. Res Judicata as a concept is applicable both in case of Civil as well as Criminal legal system. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of the Judicial System.

And, therefore, the same case cannot be taken up again either in the same or in the different Court of India. This is just to prevent them from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff may not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury. The doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice.

Stare Decisis is a doctrine used in all court cases and with all legal issues. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. The past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle or rule that is created by a court decision. This decision becomes an example, or authority, for judges deciding similar issues later.

Stare Decisis is the doctrine that obligates courts to look to precedent when making their decisions. These two principles allow American law to build case-by-case, and make our legal system a common law system. Res judicata binds parties and privies, while stare decisis operates between stranger also and binds courts from taking a contrary view on the point of law already decided.

Res judicata presupposes judicial finding upon the same facts as involved in subsequent litigation between the same parties.

Stare decisis applies to same principle of law to all parties. Res judicata binds parties and privies, while stare decisis operates between stranger also and binds courts from taking a contrary view on the point of law already decided. Res judicata relates to a specific controversy, stare decisis touches legal principles.

Res judicata presupposes judicial finding upon the same facts as involved in subsequent litigation between the same parties. Stare decisis applies to same principle of law to all parties. Courtesy:- Dr. Deepak Miglani. Newer Post Older Post Home. A defendant in an earlier proceeding is precluded from bringing a later action if: " 1 the claim or defense asserted in the second action was a compulsory counterclaim that the defendant failed to assert in the first action, or 2 the claim or defense represents what is essentially a collateral attack on the first judgment.

Nylok Corp. Identity of Parties. The examining attorney should not invoke res judicata based on an inter partes case or a federal court proceeding involving the applicant, since there is no identity of parties. In this situation, the examining attorney may rely on stare decisis. In re Alfred Dunhill Ltd.

Collateral estoppel may be invoked even where identity of parties is lacking, if the other prerequisites for applying the doctrine are met. Same Set of Transactional Facts. Res judicata does not apply unless the subsequent claim is based on that same set of transactional facts as the prior claim. Even when there is an identity of parties, a claim for trademark infringement is not the same as an inter partes claim for opposition or cancellation of the registration of a mark.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has warned that the USPTO should use caution in applying res judicata based on an infringement action, because infringement actions and Board proceedings are "different causes of action [that] may involve different sets of transactional facts, different proofs, different burdens and different public policies. See also Nasalok, F. Collateral Estoppel. In the absence of res judicata, the related principle of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, can also bar relitigation of the same issue in a second action between the same parties or their privies.

Collateral estoppel applies where: " 1 a prior action presents an identical issue; 2 the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; 3 the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and 4 the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party.

Disney Enters. Cristy's Pizza Inc.