Lott v. Toomey

52 Citing cases

  1. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Jackson

    566 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1990)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that "[t]he elements of res judicata, or claim preclusion, are a prior judgment on the merits, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, with substantial identity of the parties, and with the same cause of action presented in both suits"

    The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does not require identity of the causes of action involved. The elements of collateral estoppel are: (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). Dairyland was not a party to the Tallapoosa County action, and Reaves was not a party to Jackson's action against Dairyland.

  2. Walker v. City of Huntsville

    62 So. 3d 474 (Ala. 2010)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that a plaintiff's assault and battery claims against a police officer were barred by collateral estoppel after a federal court, resolving the same plaintiff's § 1983 excessive force claim, determined the police officer's use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment

    `Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior [action].'" Smith, 653 So.2d at 934 (quoting Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985)).'

  3. Lee L. Saad Construction Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C.

    851 So. 2d 507 (Ala. 2002)   Cited 84 times
    Holding an arbitrator's award is res judicata as to a subsequent claim if the original claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and all of the other elements of res judicata are met

    Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior [action]."' Smith, 653 So.2d at 934 (quoting Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985))."Biles v. Sullivan, 793 So.2d 708, 712 (Ala. 2000).

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Smith v. Union Bank Trust Co.

    653 So. 2d 933 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that a dismissal not on the merits allows a plaintiff to file a new complaint

    "Where 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). By way of showing the slight contrast, we note that our cases applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, have required the following elements: (1) that an issue in a prior action was identical to the issue litigated in the present action; (2) that the issue was actually litigated in the prior action; (3) that resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) that the same parties are involved in the two actions. Dairyland Ins. Co., 566 So.2d at 726; see also Constantine v. United States Fidelity Guar. Co., 545 So.2d 750 (Ala. 1989).

  7. Stewart v. Brinley

    902 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 47 times

    "` Smith v. Union Bank Trust Co., 653 So.2d 933, 934 (Ala. 1995). "`Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior [action].'" Smith, 653 So.2d at 934 (quoting Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985)).'

  8. Gonzalez v. Divincenti

    844 So. 2d 1196 (Ala. 2002)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that a summary judgment was final and appealable even though a request for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the ALAA remained pending because any award of attorney fees is collateral to the judgment

    "Where 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). "[T]his Court has . . . held that a dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits.

  9. 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).

  10. Angus v. Wald (In re Wald)

    208 B.R. 516 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1997)   Cited 28 times
    Finding bankruptcy courts required to apply federal law of collateral estoppel to determine whether a state court default judgment has preclusive effect

    In Alabama, 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). Factor number 2 is, of course, the issue before this Court.