Surname1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Respect for Judgment

Question 1: Res Judicata

Res Judicata which is often narrowly used to mean claim preclusion and originally Latin

to mean “a matter (already) judged” refers to either the civil or common legal systems a

scenario in which a there is already a final verdict regarding a case filed in the legal system, and

there is no more chance for legal appeal. Additionally, Res judicata also comprise doctrines that

are supposed to preclude any further of a case on the same issue between the same complainants.

In the case of Joe Richman, his second claim is barred by the doctrines of Res judicata because

his earlier case which is of the same concept as the second one. His first allegations were that the

Town ordinance was violating his equal protection rights under the first and the Fourteenth

Amendments had been thrown out by the district court judge through a summary judgment

finding the ordinance is facially valid and Richman had failed to present any proof of his

allegations. Therefore, the behavior of Richman of filing another allegation is disrespect for legal

judgment.

Question 2: Collateral Estoppel

The concept of collateral estoppel implies the doctrine that stops someone from

relitigating an issue after a court judgment. The concept of collateral estoppel is addressed in the

case of the United States vs. Mendoza in the sense that the court of appeals alleged that the

federal administraion was prohibited to relitigate the issue despite the claims that non-mutual
 Surname2

offensive collateral estoppel might have not applied contrary to the government. That would not

apply especially when the opponent pursuing to halt the government from relitigating is not the

same party than the contemporary one in a preceding action or when the topic is not the same as

was existent in the leading action. Generally, the concept of collateral estoppel portrayed by the

Supreme Court, in this case, is misleading because the Supreme Court consistently rejected the

presentation of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel in contradiction of the federal

administration. A verdict sanctioning non-mutual collateral estoppel contrary to the government

in such circumstances would considerably impede the growth of significant legal issues.
 Surname3

Work Cited

"United States V. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984)." Justia Law. N.p., 2018. Web. 12 Dec. 2018.