dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court. In my view, the trial court correctly ruled that the claim asserted by Kawai Farms in the present action was barred by res judicata.
The Court has recently thoroughly reviewed the current status of res judicata in Idaho. Diamond v. Farmers Group, Inc., 119 Idaho 146, 804 P.2d 319 (1990). In Diamond, we said that “a valid and final *616judgment rendered in an action extinguishes all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions out of which the cause of action arose.” 119 Idaho at 150, 804 P.2d at 323.
The decision of the trial court in this case is fully in accord with the principles we reaffirmed in Diamond. After reviewing the concepts of claim preclusion and transaction that we reaffirmed in Diamond, the trial court concluded:
If the first case had been tried, proof of the value of the lots would have been essential to the plaintiff’s claim for fraud. Whether developable property has adequate water and the potential for decent sewage disposal is a key factor in the value of the property. Res judicata bars relitigation of the same claim even if there is new evidence to support it. The claim, that false representations were made about the characteristics of the property and that because of the allegedly false claims the property has a lower value, or as plaintiff contends, no value, is the same claim. The claim is barred by res judicata.
In my view, this was the correct analysis of the application of res judicata or claim preclusion to this case. As I see it, whether Kawai exercised due diligence or not in discovering the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations may be part of a proper statute of limitations analysis, but is not a proper part of a res judicata or claim preclusion analysis.
I would affirm the trial court’s decision.