Richman's second claim is barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata. The cause of action was already litigated and rendered a final judgement. Plus, this new evidence she presents sounds like he said/she said issues and her point of bringing up ethnicity up around the second time around after she was denied the first makes it suspicious. If she already had this evidence before why not file with it all to begin? Her second claim is closely related to the first and I believe the judgement would be the same. The town has their rules, and she chose not to follow them and now that her first claim was denied she brings up discrimination, defamanation and other things to defend the fact that she wants a helicopter pad on her estate but even the new evidence she presented isn't given justification for the actual issue she is fighting for. What does her ethnicity have to do with the fact that Happy Town doesn't allow helicopter pads regardless!? She should just move to another town and stop stirring so much drama in the town.

United States v. Mendoza, 464 US 154 (1984), Mendoza sought to become a naturalized American. The lower courts held that this claim had already been decided in a prior district case involving other aliens. Mendoza's attorney sought certiorari to challenge and asserted that he had been denied due process of law. The court delivered a unanimous opinion, stating that the non-mutual collateral estoppel only related to private litigations. Collateral Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was already resolved in a prior dispute. It makes sense to me and I agree with SCOTUS' decision of reserving the government's time for new case law.

respond to the paragraph and ask questions