law-collateral-estoppel | other estoppel theories | estoppel | equitable estoppel | admission | deemed
admissions | res judicata| | claim preclusion | collateral estoppel | collateral attack
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of particular issues already resolved in a
prior suit. Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 628–29. A party relying on this doctrine must prove (1) the facts
sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action, (2) those
facts were essential to the judgment in the first action, and (3) the parties were cast as
adversaries in the first action. Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994).
The doctrine of res judicata “prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause of action that has been finally
adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the
prior suit.” Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992). A party relying on this
doctrine must prove there is (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2)
identity of parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second action based on the same claims that
were, or could have been, raised in the first action. Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652
(Tex. 1996).
CASE LAW FROM HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS
The elements of collateral estoppel are: (1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully
and fairly litigated in the first action, (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action, and
(3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first action. Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo-Dutch
Petroleum Int'l, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 38, 52 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Dep't
of Pub. Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Tex. 2001)). It is undisputed that the Pedens were not "cast
as adversaries" against South Texas and Lawton in the earlier suit. Therefore, collateral estoppel does not
apply. The trial court erred if it granted summary judgment on this ground.
Peden v. South Texas Surveying Assoc., Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] Sep. 10, 2009)(Alcala)
(defamation, substantial truth defense, estoppel, judicial estoppel, quasi-estoppel)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT IN PART, REVERSE TC JUDGMENT IN PART, AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley
01-08-00373-CV Tom and Paula Peden v. South Texas Surveying Associates, Inc., and Fred W. Lawton,
Stephen Pohl Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lynn Bradshaw-Hull
Iglesia Hispana Nueva Vida Houston, Inc. v. Rosin (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 7, 2007)(Bland)(NE-MSJ, collateral
estoppel)
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |