of Ms. Moyer. T 19 Justice NEHRING and Justice LEE concur in Associate Chief Justice DURRANT's opinion. 1 . 2003 UT App 168, ¶¶ 5-7, 72 P.3d 135. 2 . Mr. Allen does not challenge the district court's conclusion that his personal injury claim met the claim preclusion test that is applied in other contexts. Thus, we will address only Mr. Allen's arguments that claim preclusion is inapplicable to small claims judgments. 3 . 725 P.2d 1372 (Utah 1986) (per curiam). 4 . City of Grantsville v. Redevelopment Agency, 2010 UT 38, ¶ 8, 233 P.3d 461 (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 . Mack v. Utah State Dep't of Commerce, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 26, 221 P.3d 194 (quoting Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 17, 16 P.3d 1214). 6 . See id. 129; see also 18 Cuarue , 57 P.3d 803, 806 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 16 . See id. ("[JJudicial economy is not
recognizing that without claim preclusion plaintiffs in small claims cases will not feel obligated to present all of their claims or all of their evidence  and they can simply file again  if need be holding that claim preclusion applies to small claims court adjudication and that judicial economy is not served by encouraging resolution of property claims in small claims court and other claims in district court holding claims waived because they all grew out of their unsatisfactory business relationship holding court obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that if small claims court judgments do not have claim preclusive effect then small claims courts become a false forum and these policy objectives are not met