{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01504297994269341, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.781553398058253, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reluctance or Apathy? Examining Georgia's Continued Adherence to a Strict Mutuality Issue Preclusion Doctrine

The common law doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, prevents parties from re-litigating an issue in subsequent lawsuits if a prior judgment already conclusively decided the issue. Issue preclusion traditionally required strict mutuality of parties; the first and second lawsuits had to involve the exact same litigants. Although the majority of jurisdictions now allow nonmutual issue preclusion, Georgia continues to require "identity of parties." Despite recently reaffirming this requirement, the Georgia Supreme Court has not thoroughly analyzed the merits of the rule. 
 
This paper examines the history and evolution of issue preclusion and the mutuality element, distinguishes offensive and defensive assertions of issue preclusion, reviews the current application of nonmutual preclusion in federal courts, compares Georgia mutuality law to the case law of other states, considers the policy arguments favoring and disfavoring strict mutuality, and explores why the Georgia Supreme Court has not addressed the nationwide trend towards allowing nonmutual issue preclusion. The paper argues for changing Georgia law to allow nonmutual defense issue preclusion in civil litigation and advises practitioners on practical avenues for achieving that goal.