Cited by

precludes later relitigation.” 3 POTTER v. EHRICH Decision of the Court ¶ 16 (2006).

§ 12- 348(A); see also 4501 ¶¶ 21-22 (2006).

at 442 ¶ 14 (quoting 4501 ¶ 26 (2006)); infra ¶ 64.

“[C]ourts often describe a judgment as being ‘on the merits’ if it finally resolves an action in a manner that precludes later relitigation of the claims involved.” 4501 ¶ 16 3 BORGES v. CHAVEZ Decision of the Court (2006) (-62 (1913); Restatement (Second) of Judgments (“Restatement”) § 19 cmt.

4501 –03, ¶ 26 (2006); see also Kopp v. Physician Grp.

v. Maricopa Cty., -02, ¶¶ 16-20 (2006).

§ 12-348(A)(2)’s prevailing party standard); see also 4501 ¶ 22 (2006) (“The Columbia Parcar and Challenge, Inc. opinions illustrate that fees should not be allowed under [A.R.S.

4501 –03 ¶¶ 25–26 (2006).

4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County , , 102, , 219 (2006) (emphasis added).)

(By contrast, “a judgment can be ‘on the merits’ for purposes of claim preclusion even if it results from the parties’ stipulation or certain pre-trial rulings by the court.” 4501 (emphasis added).)

See 4501 -03, ¶¶ 24-26 (2006).

See 4501 ¶ 19 (2006) (explaining that a Rule 68 judgment, “under ordinary principles of claim preclusion,” prevents the parties thereto from re-litigating the claims resolved by the judgment).

See 4501 ¶ 26, (explaining that issue preclusion bars the litigation of issues “that have in fact been litigated and were essential to a prior judgment”).

¶12 Rule 68 “allows either party to serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be entered in accordance with the terms of the offer.” 4501 ¶ 4, (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

Id.; see i-501 -03, ¶ 26 , -20 (2006) (stipulated judgment may have claim-preclusive effect).

encompasses the entry of a judgment that determines claims in a case, but ‘adjudication’ does not necessarily mean that this determination must follow a trial or even a hearing.” 4501 ¶ 15

v. Maricopa County, ¶ 21 , (recognizing that a party is not eligible for a fee award under § 12-348 merely because it is successful at an interim stage); State ex rel.

See 4501 ¶ 14 , Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys.

4501 , (internal citations omitted).

See 4501 (“Issue preclusion, in contrast [to claim preclusion], applies only as to issues that have in fact been litigated and were essential to a prior judgment.”).

And because, in Arizona, actual litigation remains a necessary predicate to the application of issue preclusion under supreme court authority, see 4501 , Hullett, , 63 P.3d at 1034-35 , a guilty plea cannot have preclusive effect under common law issue preclusion.