concluding that privity existed between a closely held corporation and its president for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel where the president was the sole shareholder
How later courts described this case
- concluding that privity existed between a closely held corporation and its president for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel where the president was the sole shareholder
- stating res judicata precludes relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in prior action between same parties or their privies and which was resolved by a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction
- under related doctrine of collateral estop-pel, issues must be identical
- res judicata prohibits relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action resolved by judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LEVINE, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that there is privity between HEI and Kent and that res judicata bars Susan’s claim for back wages against HEI. Because that holding is dispositive, I concur in the result and that portion of the opinion that analyzes res judicata.