Two thoughts: 1. The plaintiff exploited a loophole in the Indiana small claims rule regarding "res judicata," which normally acts to prevent a party from re-l

Two thoughts: 1. The plaintiff exploited a loophole in the Indiana small claims rule regarding "res judicata," which normally acts to prevent a party from re-litigating a decided matter. [The rule states](http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/ http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/), "A judgment shall be res judicata only as to the amount involved in the particular action and shall not be considered an adjudication of any fact at issue in any other action or court. So the plaintiff lost a $6,000 claim in small claims, but somehow he was not barred from bringing claims in superior court on the same set of facts for a larger amount of money. I think the judge should have seen through this... 2. Requests for admission are the most abused discovery tools in modern litigation. There is no limit on the number of requests for admission. They are designed to streamline and focus areas of dispute, but hyperactive litigants are always trying to sneak case-killer facts into them to get "admitted" either by accident or failure to respond, the latter of which happened here.