Most scholarly works on res judicata rest on two long–established assumptions: i) the scope for the preclusive effects of previously rendered judgments upon subsequent proceedings is rather narrow in civil law systems if compared to the extensive approach that characterizes the common law tradition especially in its U.S. epiphany; ii) the very idea of issue preclusion is generally said to be absent or rejected in the civil law world. Accordingly, this alleged divergence has over time discouraged the development a meaningful dialogue between common lawyers and civil law scholars on the topic.
This Article confronts the said assumptions and, by comparing Italian and US law, aims to yield new critical insights into the topic.