California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sohal v. People ex rel. Dep't of Transp., C073725 (Cal. App. 2014):
no stability in transactions, and thus the doctrine of res judicata "is the service rendered by the courts" to society in furtherance of this interest. (Rest.2d Judgments (1982) Introduction, p. 11.) While the principle is difficult for lay people (and some attorneys) to appreciate, the importance to society of finality will generally transcend an individual's perception of an unjust result from an arguably incorrect application of the law; an erroneous judgment is thus entitled to the same effect as any other. (People v. Cotton Belt. Ins. Co. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 805, 808.)
In modern terminology, res judicata has two aspects after a final judgment. Claim preclusion prohibits subsequent litigation between the same parties on the same "cause of action." Issue preclusion operates as an estoppel against a losing party for issues actually litigated and resolved in the prior final judgment. (Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 235, 242; Rest.2d Judgments, supra, pp. 1, 4.) Even if we entertain the unwarranted assumption that a different "primary right" is at issue in the present litigationmaking claim preclusion inapplicable (Pitts v. City of Sacramento (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 853, 857)the value of the lease was an issue actually litigated between the same parties and is now the subject of a final judgment.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.