privies based upon any claims arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Ft. Frye Teachers Assn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395, 692 N.E.2d 140. Thus, claim preclusion generally disallows relitigation of a cause of action that was or could have been litigated in the prior action. Grava v. Parkman Twp. at 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (defining transaction as common nucleus of operative facts). {¶ 13} The doctrine has also been applied to defenses. Thus, courts have held that a defendant should raise all applicable defenses in an initial action in order to avoid the bar in a subsequent action. Johnson’s Island, Inc. v. Danbury Twp. Bd. of Trustees (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 241, 244-246, 23 O.O.3d 243, 431 N.E.2d 672 (<HOLDING>). See, also, Italiano v. Commercial Fin. Corp.,
holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action holding that ujnder res judicata or claim preclusion a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties  from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings