Cited by

Comm’n of Ariz., –26 (App. 1993).

Comm’n, ), “rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,” ¶ 7 (1999) (citations omitted).

Comm’n, –27 (App. 1993), issue preclusion only bars relitigation of facts or claims that have been actually litigated and determined by a valid final judgment.

Comm’n, –27 (App. 1993), preclusion only bars relitigation of facts or claims that have been actually litigated and determined by a valid final judgment.

Comm’n, here, the November 2017 award decided compensability— i.e., that Marquez suffered an injury and that the injury was caused by his work, see Yates v. Indus.

Comm’n, (explaining that “issue preclusion” precludes a party from using a second proceeding to relitigate an issue that has already been decided).

Comm’n, (“Issue preclusion does not apply in this case because the issue of causation has never been litigated.”); see also In re the Gen.

Comm’n, (the terms claim preclusion and issue preclusion are more descriptive, and thus less likely to cause confusion, than the terms res judicata and collateral estoppel).

Comm’n, precludes “a claim when a former judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now in issue between the same parties or their privities was, or might have been, determined in the former action.” ¶ 7 (1999).

Comm’n, -26, -46 (App. 1993).

Comm’n, , (recognizing "res judicata and collateral estoppel" as more confusing and less descriptive compared to “claim preclusion” and "issue preclusion”).