their fault; affording them a second opportunity in which to litigate the matter, with the benefit of hindsight, would contravene the very principles upon which collateral estoppel is based and should not be allowed.”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125, 93 S.Ct. 938, 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973). In situations where the same parties are involved, the rationale behind these cases makes no exception for prior decisions that were wrongly decided because of insufficient or unavailable evidence. While we recognize that Missouri courts have not clearly indicated how to resolve the fairness and accuracy versus efficiency and finality conundrum, most courts require more to avoid issue preclusion than simply an assertion that the previous decision was wrong. See, e.g., Brown, 442 U.S. at 132, 99 S.Ct. 2205 (<HOLDING>); SEC v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295,
recognizing that by promoting repose and stability in judgments collateral estoppel often blockades unexplored paths that may lead to truth holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel recognizing that the doctrines of technical res judicata and collateral estoppel serve as important means of promoting certainty and efficiency recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims