Aran Wricnt, Artuur R. Mircer & Epwarp H. Coorer, Practice anp Procepure § 4403 (2d ed. 2002) (discussing res judicata as a judicial creation). Specifically, res judicata encompasses the doctrine of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194. " '[Cllaim preclusion corresponds to causes of action;] issue preclusion corresponds to the facts and issues underlying causes of action.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70, ¶ 31, 194 P.3d 956). 7 . Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . See id. 9 . Id. (quoting Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 2003 UT 13, ¶ 34, 73 P.3d 325); see also id. 1 Serv. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 601, 621 (Utah 1983); see also Salt Lake Citizens Cong., 846 P.2d at 1251 (<HOLDING>). 15 . See, e.g., Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho
holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo holding that credibility determinations are for the jury recognizing that because claim preclusions purposes are advanced utah courts have applied the doctrine to administrative agency determinations since at least 1950