The requirements for the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine are: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privy with a party to the prior adjudication. Gumma v. White, 216 Ill. 2d 23, 38 (2005), citing Du Page Forklift Service, Inc. v. Material Handling Services, Inc., 195 Ill. 2d 71, 77 (2001); American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Savickas, 193 Ill. 2d 378, 387 (2000); Talarico v. Dunlap, 177 Ill. 2d 185, 191 (1997). "In other words, collateral estoppel or issue preclusion prevents relitigation of an issue between the same parties or their privies in any future lawsuit based on a different claim."
¶ 81 “Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine and its application is governed by certain general principles.” Gumma v. White, 216 Ill.2d 23, 38, 295 Ill.Dec. 628, 833 N.E.2d 834 (2005). Our supreme court has explained that “the minimum threshold requirements for the application of collateral estoppel are: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.”
Traditionally, there are three threshold requirements for the application of collateral estoppel. Gumma v. White, 216 Ill. 2d 23, 38 (2005); Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Guaranty Ass'n v. Department of Insurance, 372 Ill. App. 3d 24, 35 (2007); In re C.M., 675 N.E.2d 1134, 1137 (Ind.App. 1997). First, the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical to the issue presented in the suit in question.
Under Illinois law, issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, applies if “(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.” Gumma v. White, 833 N.E.2d 834, 843 (Ill. 2005). A judgment is final for issue preclusion purposes when the possibility of appellate review has been exhausted.
In Illinois, the application of collateral estoppel requires at least that "(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication." Gumma v. White, 833 N.E.2d 834, 843, 216 Ill. 2d 23, 28 (Ill. 2005) (citations omitted). In Illinois, "it is the order confirming the sale, rather than the judgment of foreclosure, that operates as the final and appealable order in a foreclosure case."
(3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.Gumma v. White, 833 N.E.2d 834, 843 (Ill. 2005). The Illinois Supreme Court has cautioned, however, against "unrestrained offensive use of collateral estoppel" because "offensive use of collateral estoppel does not always foster judicial economy and fairness in the way that defensive use of collateral estoppel typically does."
Under Illinois law, collateral estoppel applies if "(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the issue presented in the present suit; (2) a final judgment was entered on the merits in the prior adjudication; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication." Gumma v. White, 833 N.E.2d 834, 843 (Ill. 2005). In addition, under Illinois law (and federal law as well) a judicial finding will be given collateral estoppel effect only if reached after a full and fair hearing.
Under Illinois law, collateral estoppel requires that “(1) the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical to issues presented for adjudication in the current proceeding; (2) there be a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior action.” Kalush v. Deluxe Corp., 171 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir.1999) ; see also Gumma v. White, 216 Ill.2d 23, 38, 295 Ill.Dec. 628, 833 N.E.2d 834 (2005). “[T]he party sought to be bound must actually have litigated the issue in the first suit and a decision on the issue must have been necessary to the judgment in the first litigation.”
'(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.'" Hurlbert v. Charles, 238 Ill.2d 248, 255, 938 N.E.2d 507, 512 (2010) (quoting Gumma v. White, 216 Ill.2d 23, 38, 833 N.E.2d 834, 843 (2005)).
"(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication." Gumma v. White, 216 Ill.2d 23, 38 (2005). Furthermore, Illinois courts examine the foreign state's law on res judicata or collateral estoppel to ascertain the effect of that state's judgment.