P.3d at 1196; see also Gila River, 212 Ariz. at 69-70, ¶ 14, 127 P.3d at 887-88. Additionally, in reaching our conclusion in Clusiaio, we relied on section 28(1) of the Restatement, which relates to excep tions to the general rule of issue preclusion, and states that issue preclusion may not apply when “[t]he party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial aetionp]” In section 26 of the Restatement, which pertains to “exceptions to the gen 51, 554 (Iowa App. 1990) (finding that because “the small claim and the district court actions both arose out of the same transaction ... [the district court ease] fit squarely under the doctrine of claim preclusion”); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); contra Isaac v. Truck Serv., Inc., 253 Conn.
holding that unreviewed state administrative proceedings do not have preclusive effect on title vii claim 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 that facilitating small claims is the policy at the very core of the class action mechanism recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack 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