Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,738 chars

effect on this issue of statutory interpretation.

Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents relitigation of issues the

parties have had a full and fair opportunity to present. Barr v. Day, 124 Wn.2d 318,

324-25, 879 P.2d 912 (1994). This doctrine prevents a party from relitigating an

issue if four requirements are met: (1) the current issue is identical to the issue

decided in a prior adjudication, (2) the prior adjudication ended in a final judgment

on the merits, (3) the party seeking to advance the current issue was a party (or in

privity with a party) in the prior adjudication, and (4) barring relitigation of the issue

26
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

would not work an injustice. Hanson v. City of Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 562,

852 P.2d 295 (1993). The party asserting issue preclusion has the burden to establish

each of these requirements. Luisi Truck Lines, Inc. v. Wash. Utils. & Transp.

Comm’n, 72 Wn.2d 887, 894, 435 P.3d 654 (1967).

The respondents cannot show that the issues are identical as those in the

federal court proceeding. As explained, the federal district court’s ruling and the

Yakima County Superior Court’s ruling involved distinct issues, so the respondents

cannot satisfy the identical issue requirement. The federal district court’s ruling is,

on its face, a ruling on standing, which relates to the federal court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. 1 CP at 317 (granting summary judgment “on the basis of lack of

standing”), 115-16 (remanding as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when a federal

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case). The court’s