Now let's touch on that cousin of estoppel, collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion.

现在让谈谈禁止反言的表亲，间接禁反言，也称为争点排除规则。

What's the third and final element for claim preclusion to apply?

申请既判力适用的第三个也是最一个要素是什么？

In such cases, the court may impose sanctions ranging from monetary penalties to evidentiary preclusions.

在种情况下，法院可能会施加从金钱处罚到证据排除的制裁。

This constitutional mandate ensures that litigants cannot evade preclusion by form-shopping or re-litigating in more favorable jurisdictions.

一宪法规定确保了当事人无法通过挑选法院或在不利的司法管辖区重新诉讼来规避既判力。

Finally, we should examine Taylor v. Sturgill, a leading case on non-party preclusion.

最，应当考察泰勒诉斯特吉尔案，是一关于非当事人排除问题的标志性案。

That is the key to understanding why claim preclusion is such a powerful doctrine.

是理解为何既判力原则如此强大的关键所在。

Critics argue that preclusion doctrines can be overly formalistic, privileging finality over fairness.

批评者认为， 既判力原则可能过于形式化，过分强调终局性而牺牲了公平性。

With that foundation, let us now turn our focus to issue preclusion.

基于此基础，现在将注意力转向争点排除。

Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, operates more narrowly than claim preclusion.

既决事项规则或称间接禁反言，其适用范围比请求排除更为狭窄。它并非禁止整个诉讼请求，而是阻止当事人在续诉讼中重新审理先前程序中已解决的特定争议点。

For issue preclusion to apply, four elements generally must be satisfied.

要适用争点排除原则，通常必须满足四个要素。

Similarly, corporations and their subsidiaries, or assigners and assignees, may be deemed privies for purposes of preclusion.

同样地， 公司与其子公司，或转让人与受让人， 可能被视为在排除效力方面的当事人。

Now that we have set those distinctions, let us dive deeper into claim preclusion.

既然已经明确了些区别，接下来让深入探讨请求权排除。

Claim preclusion applies when three core elements are satisfied.

当满足三个核心要素时，请求权排除适用。

Res judicata or collateral estoppel, claim or issue preclusion, assumption of risk, a contributory or comparative negligence, duress, fraud as a defense, release waiver.

既判力或间接不可翻案，请求或争点排除，风险自负，共同或比较过失，胁迫，欺诈抗辩，豁免弃权。

Whether in trial court or on appeal, recognizing when preclusion applies, and when exceptions may arise, can significantly influence the outcome of a dispute.

无论是在初审法院还是在上诉阶段，识别何时适用既判力原则以及何时可能出现外情况，都能显著影响争议的结果。

Offensive non-mutual issue preclusion, by contrast, arises when a new plaintiff seeks to rely on a finding made against the defendant in an earlier suit.

相比之下，进攻性非相互性争点排除则出现在新原告试图依赖于先前诉讼中对被告作出的不利判决之时。

If the issue was stipulated, assumed, or uncontested, then it has not been actually litigated for preclusion purposes.

如果该问题已通过协议、假定或未受争议的方式处理，那么在为排除目的而实际诉讼中，它并未真被争议过。

That is, only parties to the prior judgment or their privies could invoke issue preclusion.

即，唯有先前判决的当事人或其利害关系人，方能援引既判事项的效力。

With those elements in mind, we should now consider the important distinction between mutual and non-mutual issue preclusion.

考虑到些要素，应当关注相互性与非相互性问题排除之间的关键区别。

There are two types of non-mutual issue preclusion, defensive and offensive.

非相互性争点排除有两种类型：防御性和攻击性。