Under both Illinois and federal law, a dismissal for failure to state of claim operates as a disposition on the merits for res judicata purposes. See Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3 (citing Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 190 (1947), and Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946)); Ryburn v. People, 811 N.E.2d 1209, 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (citing Bond v. Dunmire, 473 N.E.2d 78, 82 (Ill. 1984)).

Id. Moreover, our role is not to question the correctness of the previous judgment, but rather to determine if the judgment was a final adjudication on the merits. See, e.g., Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that "final resolution of one suit is conclusive in a successor, whether or not that decision was correct); Johnson v. Panizzo, 664 F. Supp. 336, 341 n. 8 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (explaining that the propriety of the substantive holding of the state court was not properly before the court because "under Illinois law claim preclusion applies without regard to whether the prior adjudication was correct or erroneous"); see also Bond v. Dunmire, 129 Ill. App.3d 796, 800 (1984) (explaining that res judicata operates irrespective of the correctness of the previous judgment). Under Rule 273, the involuntary dismissal issued on November 21, 2002 was an adjudication on the merits. Accordingly, all three elements of res judicata are satisfied.

I recognize that plaintiff's complaint, with its attached survey, sufficiently alleges that the bushes and fences are unlawful encroachments in that they are within the public right-of-way. See Bond v. Dunmire, 129 Ill. App. 3d 796, 804 (1984) (motion to dismiss admits facts contained in exhibits to complaint). However, the complaint fails to sufficiently allege that the encroachments obstruct the road or make passage on the road unreasonably unsafe; it is undisputed that the bushes and fencing are within the road's unpaved right-of-way, and although plaintiff alleges that the encroachments "substantially reduc[e] * * * the space of the roadway that may be used for travel by motor vehicles," the survey actually shows that the fence does not intrude into the paved road at all and that just a few bushes even marginally extend over the paved roadway.

But the difference to the plaintiff can be significant. Whereas a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction does not operate as a disposition on the merits for res judicata purposes (134 Ill. 2d R. 273), a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action does. Bond v. Dunmire, 129 Ill. App. 3d 796, 801, 473 N.E.2d 78, 82 (1984). To decide the case on the merits instead of on jurisdictional grounds, therefore, may prevent the plaintiff from refiling the cause of action in another forum.