Which statement best describes when res judicata applies to claims against a defendant?

• A. When a claim against a particular defendant has been brought to a final judgment on the merits, and the other claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
• B. Only after a dismissal without prejudice
• C. Always allows new claims regardless of relatedness
• D. Only in criminal cases

Answer: (A)

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a later claim against the same defendant when a court has entered a final judgment on the merits in a prior action and the new claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence. In practice, this means once the defendant has faced a final, merits-based decision, related claims that grow out of the same happenings are not allowed in a new suit. The statement matches this principle: there’s a final judgment on the merits against a specific defendant, and the other claims come from the same transaction or occurrence. Dismissals without prejudice don’t trigger res judicata because they aren’t final judgments on the merits. Res judicata is a civil-law concept and isn’t limited to criminal cases; it applies whenever the criteria (final judgment on the merits, same defendant, and related transaction or occurrence) are met. If the new claims aren’t related to the prior action, res judicata doesn’t bar them.