action based upon a different claim.” Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431, 434, 351 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1986); see also Shelton v. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp., 325 S.C. 248, 251, 481 S.E.2d 706, 707 (1997) (noting collateral estoppel or issue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating in a subsequent suit an issue actually and necessarily litigated and determined in a prior action). The party asserting collateral estoppel “must show that the issue was actually litigated and directly determined in the prior action and that the matter or fact directly in issue was necessary to support the first judgment.” Beall v. Doe, 281 S.C. 363, 371, 315 S.E.2d 186, 191 (Ct.App.1984) (citing in part Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982)). See, e.g., Shelton, 325 S.C. at 254, 481 S.E.2d at 709 (<HOLDING>). Only a party to a prior action or one in
holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect holding that a fact established by a criminal judgment was to be given conclusive effect under collateral estoppel doctrine holding that to determine collateral estoppel effect of a federal civil rights action fjederal law governs the preclusive effect of a claim arising under federal law holding employment security commissions findings of fact that an employee was discharged without cause would not be given preclusive effect on the basis of collateral estoppel in employees subsequent civil action against employer for wrongful termination holding that equitable determinationcan have collateral estoppel effect in subsequent legal action