For offensive issue preclusion to be valid, what must be demonstrated?

For offensive issue preclusion to be valid, it must be demonstrated that a nonparty established an element of its claim against a party from a previous lawsuit. This principle allows a nonparty who has not been involved in the original action to use the outcome of that prior action to prevent the opposing party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided.

In the context of offensive issue preclusion, a nonparty seeks to benefit from a previous judgment by showing that the same issue was present and adjudicated in that earlier case, leading to a favorable outcome for the now nonparty. The key here is that the element in question must have been essential to the judgment in the prior case, thereby binding the party in subsequent litigations.

The other options suggest requirements that do not align with the principles of offensive issue preclusion. For instance, the need for a nonparty to relitigate the entire issue is not accurate, as issue preclusion focuses specifically on the issues that have been decided rather than the entire case. Additionally, being a party in both lawsuits is unnecessary for offensive issue preclusion; it is designed precisely for nonparties to take advantage of prior findings. Lastly, the option regarding only financial damages overlooks the broader scope of issues that