Which statement correctly distinguishes collateral estoppel from res judicata?

• A. Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of the entire case, while res judicata precludes relitigation of individual issues.
• B. Collateral estoppel and res judicata are the same doctrine.
• C. Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of specific issues already decided; res judicata bars claims that could have been litigated in a prior final judgment.
• D. Res judicata applies only to administrative rulings, not court judgments.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that these two doctrines preclude different scopes of relitigation. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, stops a party from relitigating a specific factual or legal issue that was actually litigated and essential to a prior final judgment. Once that issue has been decided, it can’t be reargued in later cases between the same parties (subject to the usual requirements like opportunity to litigate and actual resolution of the issue).

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars bringing a new action based on a claim that was, or could have been, raised in a prior final judgment. It protects against relitigating the entire claim, not just a single contested issue, and applies to the same parties or their privies.

So the statement that collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of specific issues already decided, while res judicata bars claims that could have been litigated in a prior final judgment, captures the correct distinction. The other options misstate the scope or nature of the doctrines.