Taylor serves as a caution against overextending the reach of preclusion doctrines.

泰勒则们，不宜过度扩展排除规则的适用范围。

So courts will look at all of these factors when deciding whether to allow offensive non-mutual issue preclusion.

因此，法院在决定是否允许进攻互惠争点排除时，会考虑所有这些因素。

OK, what's the difference between defensive and offensive non-mutual issue preclusion?

好的，防和攻击相互争点排除的区别是什么？

Let us now look at Allen v. McCurry, a case in which the court held that issue preclusion barred a federal civil rights claim under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, based on issues previously litigated in a state criminal proceeding.

现在让们来看艾伦诉麦柯里案，法院在此案裁定，基于先前在州刑事诉讼已审理的问题，议题排除原则阻止了根据《美国法典》第42编第1983条提出的联邦民权诉求。

In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the United States was barred by issue preclusion from relitigating issues it had previously litigated and lost through a state court case in which it had substantially controlled the litigation.

在此裁决，最高法院认定，美国因既判力原则被禁止重新审理那些它已在州法院案件实质控制诉讼并败诉的问题。

Others contend that the transactional approach to claim preclusion may unduly burden plaintiffs by forcing them to consolidate diverse claims into a single lawsuit prematurely.

其他人则认为，主张排除原则的交易方法可能不当地加重原告的负担，迫使他们过早地将多种诉求合并到一个诉讼。

Defensive non-mutual issue preclusion is when a defendant in a second lawsuit tries to use a finding from a previous case where the plaintiff lost against a different defendant.

防互涉既判事项预clusion是指在第二个诉讼，被告试图利用原告在之前案件败诉给另一被告的判决结果。

Defensive non-mutual issue preclusion occurs when a new defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from relitigating an issue the plaintiff lost in a prior action against a different defendant.

防相互争点排除发生在新的被告试图阻止原告就其在前一针对不同被告的诉讼已败诉的争点进行重新审理时。

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。

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。

So it's really about making sure that the party against whom issue preclusion is being asserted had a real chance to fight their corner in the first case.

所以，这实际上是为了确保被主张既判事项的当事人在第一个案件确实有机会为自己辩护。

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，它并未真正被争议过。

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。

Fourth, and finally, the party against whom preclusion is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first case.

最后，被主张排除的一方必须在初审案件享有充分且公平的争议审理机会。这一要求旨在防止该原则的不公正适用。

OK, so non-mutual issue preclusion, both defensive and offensive, adds a whole other layer of complexity to this already complex doctrine.

好的， 相互争点排除， 无论是防还是攻击，都为这一本已复杂的法律原则增添了全新的复杂层面。

The case exemplifies how issue preclusion may bind even the federal government, provided the requirements are met, and further illustrates the flexible application of privity principles.

此案展了在满足条件的情况下， 既判力如何能够约束联邦政府，并进一步阐明了当事人原则的灵活应用。

Fourth, courts often recognize exceptions to preclusion for extraordinary cases, such as fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental fairness principles.

第四，法院通常会对特殊案件的既判力予以例外处理，例如涉及法庭欺诈、管辖权缺失或违反基本公平原则的情况。

Proposals for reform include more flexible standards for determining privity, clearer guidelines for identifying essential issues, and greater judicial discretion to decline preclusion in the interest of justice.

改革建议包括制定更为灵活的确定当事人关系的标准，明确识别关键问题的指导方针，以及赋予法官更大的自由裁量权， 以便在追求正义的前提下拒绝排除规则的适用。

Yeah, the ones that don't count for claim preclusion.

是的，那些不构成请求排除的解雇。

OK, what about offensive non-mutual issue preclusion?

那么，进攻相互争点排除又是什么呢？