Lott v. Toomey

20 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. West v. Amberson

    Case No.: 1:17-cv-01212-SGC (N.D. Ala. Feb. 9, 2018)

    Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 328 (1971); Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 328 (1979). The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not require identity of the causes of action involved but does require: (1) an issue identical to the one litigated in the prior suit; (2) that the issue was actually litigated in the prior suit; (3) that resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the same parties. Pierce v. Rummell, 535 So. 2d 594, 596-97 (Ala. 1988); Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985); Wheeler v. First Ala. Bank of Birmingham, 364 So. 2d 1190, 1199 (Ala. 1978). Ward does not meet the requirements for collateral estoppel.

  3. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

    16 F. Supp. 2d 744 (S.D. Tex. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    For example, it stated the same critical language (i.e., that preclusion extends to any "issue which was or could have been litigated in the prior action" Wheeler, 364 So.2d at 1199) in several cases involving court-approved settlements. See e.g. Educators' Investment Corporation of Alabama, Inc. v. Autrey, 383 So.2d 536, 538 (Ala. 1980) (class action settlement); Parmater v. Amcord, Inc., 699 So.2d 1238, 1240-41 (Ala. 1997) (settlement); Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985) (consent decree). In particular, in Autrey, 383 So.2d 536, a corporation brought suit in Alabama state court seeking payment from a shareholder on a promissory note.

  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. P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (In re Savage)

    Case No. 14-00540-TOM-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Jul. 23, 2015)

    (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding.Id. (citing Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985)). "Unless all four are satisfied, collateral estoppel may not apply."

  6. Cadles of Grassy Meadows, II, LLC v. Guthrie (In re Guthrie)

    489 B.R. 440 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. See Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala.1985). Unless all four are satisfied, collateral estoppel may not apply.

  7. In re Wallis

    Case No.: 09-06669-BGC-7, A. P. No.: 10-00010-BGC-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, a prior judgment may be accorded collateral estoppel effect if: (1) the issue involved in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue involved in the present proceeding; (2) the issue was "actually litigated" in the prior proceeding; (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). A judgment by consent satisfies the "actually litigated" requirement and is, with respect to issues actually decided by that judgment, as conclusive between the parties as a judgment entered after the conclusion of a trial.

  8. Anglin v. Wallis (In re Wallis)

    Case No.: 09-06669-BGC-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2011)

    necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala.1985). A judgment by consent satisfies the "actually litigated" requirement and is, with respect to issues actually decided by that judgment, as conclusive between the parties as a judgment entered after the conclusion of a trial.

  9. In re Barnett

    BK: 10-70873, AP: 10-70023 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 4, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, the following elements must be present before the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies: (1) the parties in the prior suit must be the same as parties in the present suit; (2) the issues to be litigated in the present suit must be identical to the issues litigated in the prior suit; (3) the issues in the present suit must have been actually litigated in the prior suit; and (4) the issues in the present suit must have been necessary for the resolution of the prior suit. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). When these elements are present, "the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior suit."

  10. In re Bennitt

    348 B.R. 820 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    Under Alabama law, a prior judgment may be accorded collateral estoppel effect if: (1) the issue involved in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue involved in the present proceeding; (2) the issue was "actually litigated" in the prior proceeding; (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). C. Section 523(a)(2)(A)