Strong v. Williams, 435 P.3d 872

John Strong owned property that he says flooded after neighbors (the Williamses) built an access road in the 1980s; the Municipality knew of flooding by the 1990s.
In 2011 Strong settled with the Williamses: a Release and Settlement Agreement paid Strong $7,500 and required driveway upgrades; Strong released "any and all claims" and the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the suit with prejudice in 2012.
In 2015 Strong sued the Williamses again and added the Municipality, alleging continuing nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeking equitable relief (removal of the road and restoration of groundwater flow); Strong admitted he sought no monetary relief from the Municipality and was not asserting IIED or trespass claims against the Municipality in discovery.
The Municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata and collateral estoppel (among other defenses); the superior court issued an oral ruling invoking collateral estoppel but a written decision relying on res judicata (and collateral estoppel for IIED), then granted summary judgment for the Municipality and entered final judgment.
On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, considered both preclusion theories, and reversed—holding neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel barred Strong’s nuisance and trespass claims against the Municipality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Strong's nuisance/trespass claims against the Municipality	The prior dismissal with prejudice of Strong's suit against the Williamses should bar relitigation of the same causes of action	The 2012 dismissal was a final judgment on the merits that precludes the same cause of action against the Municipality	Res judicata does not apply: Municipality was not a party and not in privity with the Williamses, so the prior judgment cannot bar claims against it
Whether collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars Strong's claims	The settlement and dismissal resolved the factual/legal issues underlying Strong's flooding claims, precluding relitigation	The stipulation and release should have preclusive effect on issues actually litigated	Collateral estoppel does not apply: the settlement and dismissal did not actually litigate or decide the issues; issue preclusion requires issues be actually litigated and essential to a judgment
Whether the Municipality can be liable for breach of the settlement agreement	(Not appealed)	Municipality was not a party to the settlement, so it cannot be sued for breach	Court affirmed dismissal of breach claim against Municipality because it was not a party to the Release and Settlement Agreement

Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 325 P.3d 501 (Alaska 2014) (distinguishes res judicata from collateral estoppel; issue preclusion requires issues actually litigated)
Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650 (Alaska 1995) (settlement prevented issues from being actually litigated; no collateral estoppel)
Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134 (Alaska 2008) (stipulation/settlement did not determine scope of governmental duty; collateral estoppel inapplicable)
Tolstrup v. Miller, 726 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1986) (stipulation to dismiss with prejudice has res judicata effect as a final judgment)
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 354 P.3d 1053 (Alaska 2015) (elements and standards for collateral estoppel)