Lott v. Toomey

5 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte Flexible Products Co.

    915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005)   Cited 61 times
    In Ex parte Flexible Products Co., 915 So. 2d 34 (Ala. 2005), this Court noted the well established principle that "'[c]ollateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, is available as a defense to relitigation of an issue in a subsequent suit between the same parties which is not on the same cause of action.'"

    ' " Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). "This additional requirement, that the parties be the same in both actions, is known as the doctrine of mutuality of estoppel.

  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. Morris ex rel. Estate of Morris v. Trust Co. of Va.

    CASE NO. 2:12-CV-1020-WKW LEAD CASE [WO] (M.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2015)

    It is noted, however, that the Trust Company cites Alabama law on res judicata in its supplemental brief. (Lead Case Doc. # 87, at 8 (citing Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985)).) A party whose claim for relief arising from identified conduct, a transaction, or an occurrence, is decided on the merits by a final judgment, shall be forever barred from prosecuting any second or subsequent civil action against the same opposing party or parties on any claim or cause of action that arises from that same conduct, transaction or occurrence, whether or not the legal theory or rights asserted in the second or subsequent action were raised in the prior lawsuit, and regardless of the legal elements or the evidence upon which any claims in the prior proceeding depended, or the particular remedies sought.

  4. 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.

  5. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America v. Wright

    897 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 31 times
    Indicating that parties have the right to establish the proper venue before the issue of arbitration is considered

    "Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior suit." Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). See also Biles v. Sullivan, 793 So.2d 708 (Ala. 2000).