Moreover, in Petro-Hunt the Fifth Circuit considered the application of res judicata where a prior action involved declaratory relief. Although the court in Petro-Hunt concluded that the prior action did not involve the same claim or cause of action, and therefore had no preclusive effect, the court explicitly applied the elements to the facts to reach that conclusion. Id. at 395-97; see also Hatton v. Grigar, 258 F. App'x 706 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court's dismissal on res judicata grounds where prior action involved declaratory judgment action). Accordingly, as long as the elements are satisfied, a prior judgment in a suit seeking declaratory relief may bar a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.
John HATTON, petitioner, v. Daniel D. GRIGAR.Case below, 258 Fed.Appx. 706. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, supra, 284 P.3d at 629. But cf. Hatton v. Grigar, 258 Fed.Appx. 706, 707 (5th Cir.2007) (prior public way and private easement claims barred subsequent trespass action to try title to strip because “[a]t their core,” both suits involved same issue of whether road was public or private); Currier v. Cyr, 570 A.2d 1205, 1209 (Me.1990) (predecessors' claims to public way and private easement in prior action, and subsequent dispute over rights to disputed strip of land, both relied upon facts “that are sufficiently related in time, space [and] origin that their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations,” thus barring subsequent claim [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Carlson v. Clark, 185 Vt. 324, 328–29, 970 A.2d 1269 (2009) (property owner's easement by necessity claim barred by prior action determining that property owner had acquired prescriptive easement over shoreline; in prior action, property owner alleged easement by necessity claim in complaint and trial court referenced easement by necessity claim in judgment). In the present case, as in Gillmo
The district court granted Grigar's motion to dismiss, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Hatton v. Grigar, 258 Fed. Appx. 706, 707, 2007 WL 4370888 (5th Cir. 2007). The Fifth Circuit explained that Hatton was attempting to have his title in the road be confirmed but that Hatton had raised the same issue in the prior case and the trial court rejected it, finding instead that the road was a public road.