Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

What It Is

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was actually decided in a prior proceeding. If a court already determined that Officer Smith lacked probable cause to arrest you (say, in a suppression hearing), the city can’t argue he had probable cause in your § 1983 case.

The Elements

The typical test requires:

1. The issue is identical to one decided in the prior proceeding
2. The issue was actually litigated and decided (not defaulted or stipulated)
3. The determination was essential to the judgment in the prior case
4. The party against whom estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue

Offensive vs. Defensive Use

• Defensive: Defendant uses a prior ruling to prevent plaintiff from relitigating an issue plaintiff already lost
• Offensive: Plaintiff uses a prior ruling to prevent defendant from relitigating an issue defendant already lost

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) — The Supreme Court approved offensive collateral estoppel, with the judge retaining discretion to deny it when it would be unfair.

Using Criminal Proceedings in § 1983

This is where collateral estoppel gets powerful for § 1983 plaintiffs:

• Suppression hearing: If the criminal court suppressed evidence because the officer lacked probable cause, that finding can preclude the city from arguing probable cause existed in your civil case
• Acquittal: A jury acquittal doesn’t necessarily establish collateral estoppel (general verdicts don’t specify which issues were decided)
• Dismissal: A simple dismissal usually doesn’t create collateral estoppel because no issue was “actually litigated”

The key: was the specific issue actually decided after full litigation? A suppression ruling with detailed findings of fact is gold. A nolle prosequi is not.

Strategic Value

If you won a suppression hearing or other pretrial ruling in your criminal case, save every document. The order, the transcript, the briefing — all of it supports your collateral estoppel argument in the § 1983 case.

Key Cases

• Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) — State court criminal rulings can have preclusive effect in federal § 1983 cases
• Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) — Offensive collateral estoppel approved