res judicata doctrine in Tennessee

2025“The doctrine of res judicata is ‘based on the public policy favoring finality in litigation and does not depend upon correctness or fairness, as long as the underlying judgment is valid.’” In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499 , at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015) (quoting Lee v. Hall, 790 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)).

2022“The doctrine of res judicata is ‘based on the public policy favoring finality in litigation and does not depend upon correctness or fairness, as long as the underlying judgment is valid.’” In re S.S.-G., 2015 WL 7259499 , at *7 (quoting Lee v. Hall, 790 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)).

2025As we have previously observed, “The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009).

2024Metro claims that Mr. MacPherson did not actually submit an application for a permit in November 2020 and that a zoning administrator conducted an informal, preliminary review of his application materials.6 For purposes of the res judicata analysis, the question is whether the environmental court action and the declaratory judgment action arose “out of the same transaction or series of connected transactions.” Creech, 281 S.W.3d at 381 .

2023The doctrine of res judicata is a “[r]ule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action[.]” Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1172 (5th ed. 1979)).

2014“The doctrine of res judicata[,] or claim preclusion[,] bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.” Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 (citing Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (further citations omitted)). “[Res judicata] is a ‘rule of rest,’ Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976), and it promotes finality in litigation, prevents inconsistent or contradictory jud

2025The doctrine of res judicata “bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.” Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tenn. 2012).

2024The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, “‘bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.’” Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 620 S.W.3d 318 , 323-24 (Tenn. 2021) (quoting Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tenn. 2012)).

2026See In re Adoption of Copeland, 43 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (“The statute is silent as 5 The doctrine of res judicata applies if “an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” Galbreath v. Harris, 811 S.W.2d 88, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). 6 A parent’s parental rights may be terminated under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(6)(A) if

2026As we have explained, [t]he doctrine of res judicata applies when “an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” -7- In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d at 439 (quoting Galbreath v. Harris, 811 S.W.2d 88, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990).

2026In the January 9, 2023 order, the court found that Mother knowingly perpetrated the severe abuse because she admitted “that she did strike her minor child in the head with an object . . . resulting in permanent disfigurement of the minor child.” This Court has repeatedly “applied the doctrine of res judicata[5] to prevent a parent from re-litigating whether she committed severe child abuse in a later termination of parental rights proceeding, when such a finding had been made in a previous dependency and neglect action.” In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435, 439 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); see also In

2026As we have previously held, “under the doctrine of res judicata, . . . a final order containing a finding of abuse cannot be attacked in subsequent actions.” In re William C., No. M2023-006460COA-R3-PT, 2024 WL 1665737 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2024) (citing In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435, 439 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010); State Dept. of Human Serv. v. Tate, No. 01-A-01-9409-CV-00444, 1995 WL 138858 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 1995)).

2005Generally, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata ‘bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues that were or could have been litigated in the former suit.’” Cohn v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 151 S.W.3d 473, 486 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (quoting Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn. 1989))).

2004The doctrine of res judicata “bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995) (quoting Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn.1989)).

2021“The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. 1987)).

2020Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, “has been described as an extension of the doctrine of res judicata” and is “applicable only when ‘it affirmatively appears that the issue involved in the case under consideration has already been litigated in a prior suit between the same parties, even though based upon a different cause of action, if the determination of such issue in the former action was necessary to the judgment. . . .’” State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 848 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631-32 (Tenn. 1987)).

2018For the res judicata doctrine to apply, the party asserting it must establish: “(1) that the underlying judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) that the same parties or their privies were involved in both suits, (3) that the same claim or cause of action was asserted in both suits, and (4) that the underlying judgment was final and on the merits.” Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 (citing Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

2015In Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998), this Court discussed various aspects of the doctrine of res judicata.

2025See generally In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that “the doctrine of res judicata [ ] prevent[s] a parent from re-litigating whether she committed severe child abuse in a later termination of parental rights proceeding, when such a finding had been made in a previous dependency and neglect action”); see also In re Madylynn C., No. M2021-00184-COA-R3-PT, 2021 WL 4476810 , at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2021) (“Because neither Appellant challenged the finality or the validity of the adjudicatory dependency and neglect order, the issue of severe child abuse

2021See In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012); In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435, 439-40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the res judicata doctrine applies “to prevent a parent from re-litigating whether []he committed severe child abuse in a later termination of parental rights proceeding when such a finding had been made in a previous dependency and neglect action”) (citing State v. Tate, No. 01-9409-CV-00444, 1995 WL 138858 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 1995)).

2021The doctrine of res judicata “bars a second suit between the same parties . . . on the same cause of action with respect to all the issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59, 64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

2013Plaintiff’s claims against the Reids and Ms. LeDoux are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which “‘bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all the issues which were or could have been litigated in the -7- former suit.’” Patton v. Estate of Upchurch, 242 S.W.3d 781, 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Young, 130 S.W.3d at 64 ) (emphasis in original).

2005P. 11 application filed); see also Lewis v. Muchmore, 26 S.W.3d at 637 (stating that doctrine of res judicata applies only where there is an "existing final judgment").

2005P. 11 application filed); see also Lewis v. Muchmore, 26 S.W.3d at 637 (stating that doctrine of res judicata applies only where there is an “existing final judgment”).

2024The Davis Court found in favor of the defendants by reason of the doctrine of res judicata, holding that an affirmative defense that can be raised must be raised when it is “essentially connected with the subject matter of the prior litigation.” Id. (quoting Gerber, 219 S.W.3d at 918 ).

2015The courts of this state have consistently applied the doctrine of res judicata .“to protect individuals from the burden" of litigating multiple lawsuits, "to promote judicial economy, and to promote the policy favoring reliance on final judgments by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Gerber v. Holcomb, 219 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Ténn.Ct.App.2006).

2017Akin to statutes of limitations, the doctrine of res judicata is a “rule of rest” and “private peace.” Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W. 2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976).

2014“The doctrine of res judicata[,] or claim preclusion[,] bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.” Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 (citing Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (further citations omitted)). “[Res judicata] is a ‘rule of rest,’ Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976), and it promotes finality in litigation, prevents inconsistent or contradictory jud

2014“The doctrine of res judicata[,] or claim preclusion[,] bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.” Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 (citing Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (further citations omitted)). “[Res judicata] is a ‘rule of rest,’ Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976), and it promotes finality in litigation, prevents inconsistent or contradictory jud

2009The doctrine of res judicata bars “a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action, with respect to all the issues which were (or could have been) litigated in the former suit.” Id. at 573-74 (quoting Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corrs., 88 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).

2025Collateral estoppel, often referred to as issue preclusion, “has been described as an extension of the doctrine of res judicata.” State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 848 (Tenn. 2009). “‘[I]t bars the same parties or their privies from relitigating in a second suit issues that were actually raised and determined in an earlier suit.’” Patton v. Est. of Upchurch, 242 S.W.3d 781, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

2024This court has even previously observed that “[i]n order to determine whether res judicata 4 State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 848 (Tenn. 2009) (noting that “the doctrine of res judicata” is “also known as claim preclusion”). -8- is applicable in this case, we must also consider the doctrine of prior suit pending.” Collins v. Sams E.

2011“The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tenn. 1987); Barnett v. Milan Seating Sys., 215 S.W.3d 828 , 834–35 (Tenn. 2007)).

2007Analysis A. Res Judicata Doctrine The trial court ruled that Mr. Mitrano’s action must be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata, which “bars a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action with respect to all the issues which were or could have been brought in a former suit.” Barnett v. Milan Seating Systems, 215 S.W.3d 828, 834-35 (Tenn.2007).

2018Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tenn. 2012) (citing In Re: Estate of Boote, 198 S.W.3d 699, 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2014“The doctrine of res judicata[,] or claim preclusion[,] bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same claim with respect to all issues which were, or could have been, litigated in the former suit.” Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 (citing Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 376 (Tenn. 2009); Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn. 1995) (further citations omitted)). “[Res judicata] is a ‘rule of rest,’ Moulton v. Ford Motor Co., 533 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tenn. 1976), and it promotes finality in litigation, prevents inconsistent or contradictory jud

2015The doctrine is grounded in the public policy principle that “litigation should be determined with reasonable' expedition, and not protracted through inattention and lack of diligence on the part of litigants or their counsel.” Id. (quoting Jordan v. Johns [ 168 Tenn. 525 ], 79 S.W.2d 798, 802 (Tenn.1935)).

2015The doctrine is grounded in the public policy principle that “litigation should be determined with reasonable' expedition, and not protracted through inattention and lack of diligence on the part of litigants or their counsel.” Id. (quoting Jordan v. Johns [ 168 Tenn. 525 ], 79 S.W.2d 798, 802 (Tenn.1935)).

1999See National Cordova [Corp.] v. City of Memphis, 214 Tenn. 371 , 380 S.W.2d 793 (1964).

1999See National Cordova [Corp.] v. City of Memphis, 214 Tenn. 371 , 380 S.W.2d 793 (1964).

2010Specifically, she claims that the juvenile court’s dismissal is considered a final judgment rendered upon the merits pursuant to the definition of res judicata as stated in Shelly v. Gipson, 400 S.W.2d 709, 714 (Tenn. 1966): “The doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights, questions and facts in issue as to the parties and their privies in the same action in other judicial tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction.” As we discussed above, the juvenile court’s dismissal of the petition for cust

2000Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995); Shelley v. Gipson, 218 Tenn. 1 , 400 S.W.2d 709, 714 (1966).

2005Goeke v. Woods, 111 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn.1989); Lewis v. Muchmore, 26 S.W.3d 632, 637 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).

2000While we agree with the Husband that the trial court’s refusal to grant him summary judgment was based upon an incorrect application of law, we find that the trial court’s decision must be affirmed due to the doctrine of res judicata. “[R]es judicata bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all issues which were or could have been litigated in the former suit.” Hampton v. Tennessee Truck Sales, Inc., 993 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn.App.1999) (citing Goeke v. Woods, 111 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn.1989)).

2025Collateral estoppel, often referred to as issue preclusion, “has been described as an extension of the doctrine of res judicata.” State v. Thompson, 285 S.W.3d 840, 848 (Tenn. 2009). “‘[I]t bars the same parties or their privies from relitigating in a second suit issues that were actually raised and determined in an earlier suit.’” Patton v. Est. of Upchurch, 242 S.W.3d 781, 787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

2013Plaintiff’s claims against the Reids and Ms. LeDoux are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, which “‘bars a second suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action with respect to all the issues which were or could have been litigated in the -7- former suit.’” Patton v. Estate of Upchurch, 242 S.W.3d 781, 790 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Young, 130 S.W.3d at 64 ) (emphasis in original).

2025See Regions Bank, 625 S.W.3d at 852 (involuntary dismissal of an earlier lawsuit for failure to prosecute did not operate as an adjudication on the merits because the record reflected the trial court’s clarification that the dismissal was without prejudice); State ex rel.

2025See Regions Bank, 625 S.W.3d at 852 (involuntary dismissal of an earlier lawsuit for failure to prosecute did not operate as an adjudication on the merits because the record reflected the trial court’s clarification that the dismissal was without prejudice); State ex rel.

2017See Jackson, 387 S.W.3d at 491 ; Gregory, 803 S.W.2d at 243-44 .

2012In other circumstances, the Court of Appeals has stated that parties asserting a res judicata defense "must generally put in evidence the record or a copy of the record of the former case.” Gregory v. Gregory, 803 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990); see also American Nat’l Bank v. Bradford, 28 Tenn.App. 239, 250 , 188 S.W.2d 971, 976 (1945).

2000In Potts v. Celotex Corp., the court talked about the “single injury rule” which is “a logical extension of basic legal principles, primarily those underlying the doctrine of res judicata.” 796 S.W.2d 678, 682 (Tenn.1990).

1995In speaking of this rule, the Potts Court said that it is "a logical extension of basic legal principles, primarily those underlying the doctrine of res judicata." 796 S.W.2d at 682 .

1997Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S.Ct. 739, 740 (1912); Mendenhall v. Barber- Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 582 (1994).

1997Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S.Ct. 739, 740 (1912); Mendenhall v. Barber- Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 582 (1994).

2023Abshure, 325 S.W.3d at 111 .

2023Abshure, 325 S.W.3d at 111 .

2009The public policy underlying the doctrine of res judicata is to “promote finality in litigation in order to conserve judicial resources and to relieve litigants from the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits.” Crawford, 39 S.W.3d at 178 .

2004Res Judicata The doctrine of res judicata applies to a situation where there are two claims “involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.” Richardson v. Tennessee Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446, 459 (Tenn.1995); see also State v. Crawford, 39 S.W.3d 172, 178 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000), perm, app. denied.