Cited by

The doctrine “applies when an issue was actually litigated in a previous proceeding, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, and there is common identity of parties.” –98 ¶ 27 (2003).

See, ¶ 20 (2003) (noting that where a case is “a matter of first impression for Arizona, we look to cases from other jurisdictions having similar statutes”).

¶ 21 (2003) (emphasis added); see also A.R.S.

.” ¶ 13 (2003) (quoting A.R.S.

§ 12-543 (three-year limitations period “[f]or relief on the ground of fraud”); ¶23 (2003) (“The statute of limitations for a negligent misrepresentation claim is two years.”) (citing A.R.S.

Restatement § 28(3),(5); ¶¶ 28–29 (2003) (applying Restatement § 28).

¶53 “[I]ssue preclusion[] applies when an issue was actually litigated in a previous proceeding, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, and there is common identity of the parties.” -98, ¶ 27 (2003) (emphasis added).

“Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, applies when an issue was actually litigated in a previous proceeding, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of the issue was essential to the decision, a valid and final decision on the merits was entered, and there is common identity of parties.” –98, ¶ 27 (2003).

-98, ¶27 , -35 (2003); see generally Kremer v. Chem.

Unlike issue preclusion, which applies only to issues that were actually litigated, -98, ¶ 27 , -35 (2003), a second claim is precluded “not only upon facts actually litigated but also upon those points which might have been litigated.” Gilbert, 155 Ariz. at 174 , 745 P.2d at 622 ; , (1979

¶¶ 16-17 , (interpreting the UFTA to hold that insolvency may be based on debts that have not been reduced to a judgment and even contingent claims may be considered in a solvency analysis if there is a likelihood that the contingency will occur).

¶ 11, (“[T]he UFTA’s purpose is to protect creditors.”) (citation omitted).

¶15 -35 (2003), Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, applies when an issue was actually litigated in a previous proceeding, there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, resolution of the issue was essential

See Hullett v. Cousin , , -35 (2003) (“[I]ssue preclusion .

(“[A] distribution of assets previously advanced by .