Lott v. Toomey

3 Citing cases

  1. George v. White

    837 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1988)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming the district court's dismissal of pro se plaintiff's § 1983 claim as barred by res judicata

    When these elements are present, "the former suit bars any later suit on the same cause of action, including issues that were or could have been litigated in the prior case." Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). The first three elements are not in dispute in this case.

  2. Gjellum v. City of Birmingham

    829 F.2d 1056 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that since § 1983 was "intended to provide a federal forum for the vindication of federal rights . . . [a]llowing a state to dictate that an unreviewed decision of a state agency will foreclose litigation of a section 1983 claim even if the issues comprising the claim were not presented or decided by the agency would therefore by directly contrary to Congress' intent . . . ."

    "Substantially identical" parties under Alabama law exist where the parties to both proceedings are "either the same, or in privity of estate, blood, or law with the original parties." Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). Claim preclusion thus may be applied in Alabama to bar litigants who were not actual parties to the prior judgment only where the non-party had either: (1) a mutual or successive relationship to the same property rights as a party to the prior proceeding; or (2) substantially identical interests in the litigation and an actual opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding.

  3. McMillian v. Johnson

    878 F. Supp. 1473 (M.D. Ala. 1995)   Cited 24 times

    See, Pierce v. Rummell 535 So.2d 594, 596-97 (Ala. 1988). Accord, Jones v. Blanton, 644 So.2d 882, 885-86 (Ala. 1994); Watkins v. U.S., 789 F. Supp. 1141, 1144 (M.D.Ala. 1992); Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 566 So.2d 723, 726 (Ala. 1990); Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985); Wheeler v. First Alabama Bank of Birmingham, 364 So.2d 1190, 1199 (Ala. 1978). A party to the second suit will not be estopped from relitigating an issue unless all of the requisite elements exist.