res judicata doctrine in Georgia

2007Northwest Social & Civic Club v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 ( 583 SE2d 858 ) (2003); see also OCGA §§ 9-11-60 (h) (“any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be”); 9-12-40 (“A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until th

2007Northwest Social & Civic Club v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 ( 583 SE2d 858 ) (2003); see also OCGA §§ 9-11-60 (h) (“any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be”); 9-12-40 (“A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until th

2018See Elrod v. Sunflower Meadows Dev., LLC, 322 Ga. App. 666, 670 (4) ( 745 SE2d 846 ) (2013) (“[W]hen this Court examines a request for a discretionary appeal, it acts in an error-correcting mode such that a denial of the application is on the merits, and the order denying the application is res judicata with respect to the substance of the requested review.”); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007).

2018See Elrod v. Sunflower Meadows Dev., LLC, 322 Ga. App. 666, 670 (4) ( 745 SE2d 846 ) (2013) (“[W]hen this Court examines a request for a discretionary appeal, it acts in an error-correcting mode such that a denial of the application is on the merits, and the order denying the application is res judicata with respect to the substance of the requested review.”); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007).

2001Chem., 237 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 514 SE2d 684 ) (1999) *779 (addressing whether sufficient adversarial relationship existed to invoke the doctrine of res judicata). 13 See Motherly v. Kinney, 227 Ga. App. 302, 304 (3) ( 489 SE2d 89 ) (1997). 14 See Beazley, supra at 564 (State Bar considered party for res judicata purposes). 15 See Fowler v. Vineyard, 261 Ga. 454, 458-459 (4) ( 405 SE2d 678 ) (1991) (balancing factors in determining whether party had full and fair opportunity to litigate). 16 OCGA § 9-11-24 (a) (2) provides that, upon a timely application, a person may intervene as a matter

2001Chem., 237 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 514 SE2d 684 ) (1999) *779 (addressing whether sufficient adversarial relationship existed to invoke the doctrine of res judicata). 13 See Motherly v. Kinney, 227 Ga. App. 302, 304 (3) ( 489 SE2d 89 ) (1997). 14 See Beazley, supra at 564 (State Bar considered party for res judicata purposes). 15 See Fowler v. Vineyard, 261 Ga. 454, 458-459 (4) ( 405 SE2d 678 ) (1991) (balancing factors in determining whether party had full and fair opportunity to litigate). 16 OCGA § 9-11-24 (a) (2) provides that, upon a timely application, a person may intervene as a matter

2026See Beasley v. State, 298 Ga. 49, 50 (2015) (under doctrine of res judicata, habeas court’s prior denial of request for relief precluded consideration of the issues raised in motion for out-of-time appeal); Davis v. State, 287 Ga. 414, 415 (2010) (where issues defendant raised in his motion for out-of- time appeal were “already litigated in the previous habeas pro- 5 The habeas court also rejected Shine’s contention that he did not file a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2006 due to the deficient perfor- mance of his lawyer. 7 ceeding,” trial court did not err in denying defendant’

2022See, e.g., Cooper, 306 Ga. at 165 (holding that under the doctrine of res judicata, the previous denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal bars a new motion for an out-of-time appeal); Beasley v. State, 298 Ga. 49, 50 (779 SE2d 301) (2015) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata precludes not only re-litigation of claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior cause of action, but those which could have been adjudicated therein.”).

2025Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007).

2025Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007).

2020See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007); see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.

2019See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007); see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue 1 Smith later appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, which presents a similar issue.

2020See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007); see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.

2019See Norris v. Norris, 281 Ga. 566, 567-568 (2) ( 642 SE2d 34 ) (2007); see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue 1 Smith later appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, which presents a similar issue.

1997Under the doctrine of res judicata, "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." OCGA § 9-12-40; Boozer v. Higdon, 252 Ga. 276, 277-278 (1), 313 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390 , hn. 2, 197 S.E. 833 (1938).

1997Under the doctrine of res judicata, "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." OCGA § 9-12-40; Boozer v. Higdon, 252 Ga. 276, 277-278 (1), 313 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390 , hn. 2, 197 S.E. 833 (1938).

2023See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320 .

2022See Jackson, 273 Ga. at 320 .

2014Res judicata thus “prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of action.” Odom v. Odom, 291 Ga. 811, 812 (1) ( 733 SE2d 741 ) (2012). *402 (a) We first address whether the Baker County Board of Elections constitutes a “court of competent jurisdiction” for purposes of res judicata.

2014Res judicata thus “prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of action.” Odom v. Odom, 291 Ga. 811, 812 (1) ( 733 SE2d 741 ) (2012). *402 (a) We first address whether the Baker County Board of Elections constitutes a “court of competent jurisdiction” for purposes of res judicata.

1997OCGA § 9-12-40 codifies the doctrine of res judicata: "A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." See McIver v. Jones, 209 Ga.App. 670, 672 , 434 S.E.2d 504 (1993). "`Collateral estoppel precludes readjudication of an issue previously adjudicated between the parties or their privies in another action.'" (Citation omitted.) Ghrist v. Fricks, 219

1997OCGA § 9-12-40 codifies the doctrine of res judicata: "A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." See McIver v. Jones, 209 Ga.App. 670, 672 , 434 S.E.2d 504 (1993). "`Collateral estoppel precludes readjudication of an issue previously adjudicated between the parties or their privies in another action.'" (Citation omitted.) Ghrist v. Fricks, 219

2019The plaintiff further alleged it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil as to Zakas because he commingled the assets of Z-Space and undercapitalized Z-Space Design as an instrument of fraud in order to obtain access to Z-Space’s contracts, which he used to enrich himself and Z-Space Design. 16 The doctrine of res judicata is that “[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the

2019The plaintiff further alleged it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil as to Zakas because he commingled the assets of Z-Space and undercapitalized Z-Space Design as an instrument of fraud in order to obtain access to Z-Space’s contracts, which he used to enrich himself and Z-Space Design. 16 The doctrine of res judicata is that “[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the

2012Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865 (1) ( 463 SE2d 5 ) (1995) (per curiam). 13 Id. at 865-66 (1). 14 Id. at 866 (1). 15 See Towe v. Connors, 284 Ga. App. 320, 321 ( 644 SE2d 176 ) (2007) (“Dismissal based upon the expiration of the statute of limitation is in essence a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[, and a] dismissal on this ground is a decision on the merits, and the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit on this claim.” (citation omitted)). 6 constituting simple negligence instead of professional negligence.16 And while Dove argues that she is not pr

2012Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865 (1) ( 463 SE2d 5 ) (1995) (per curiam). 13 Id. at 865-66 (1). 14 Id. at 866 (1). 15 See Towe v. Connors, 284 Ga. App. 320, 321 ( 644 SE2d 176 ) (2007) (“Dismissal based upon the expiration of the statute of limitation is in essence a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[, and a] dismissal on this ground is a decision on the merits, and the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit on this claim.” (citation omitted)). 6 constituting simple negligence instead of professional negligence.16 And while Dove argues that she is not pr

1997This doctrine, codified at OCGA § 9-12-40, provides: "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." Miller v. Charles, 211 Ga.App. 386, 387 , 439 S.E.2d 88 (1993).

1997This doctrine, codified at OCGA § 9-12-40, provides: "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." Miller v. Charles, 211 Ga.App. 386, 387 , 439 S.E.2d 88 (1993).

2012Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865 (1) ( 463 SE2d 5 ) (1995) (per curiam). 13 Id. at 865-66 (1). 14 Id. at 866 (1). 15 See Towe v. Connors, 284 Ga. App. 320, 321 ( 644 SE2d 176 ) (2007) (“Dismissal based upon the expiration of the statute of limitation is in essence a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[, and a] dismissal on this ground is a decision on the merits, and the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit on this claim.” (citation omitted)). 6 constituting simple negligence instead of professional negligence.16 And while Dove argues that she is not pr

2012Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865 (1) ( 463 SE2d 5 ) (1995) (per curiam). 13 Id. at 865-66 (1). 14 Id. at 866 (1). 15 See Towe v. Connors, 284 Ga. App. 320, 321 ( 644 SE2d 176 ) (2007) (“Dismissal based upon the expiration of the statute of limitation is in essence a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[, and a] dismissal on this ground is a decision on the merits, and the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent lawsuit on this claim.” (citation omitted)). 6 constituting simple negligence instead of professional negligence.16 And while Dove argues that she is not pr

2026See also Guthrie v. Wickes, 295 Ga. App. 892, 894 (2) ( 673 SE2d 523 ) (2009) (“An order denying an application for discretionary review invokes the doctrine of res judicata when ... the judgment appealed from is final and on the merits.”).

2026See also Guthrie v. Wickes, 295 Ga. App. 892, 894 (2) ( 673 SE2d 523 ) (2009) (“An order denying an application for discretionary review invokes the doctrine of res judicata when ... the judgment appealed from is final and on the merits.”).

2022See, e.g., Cooper, 306 Ga. at 165 (holding that under the doctrine of res judicata, the previous denial of a motion for an out-of-time appeal bars a new motion for an out-of-time appeal); Beasley v. State, 298 Ga. 49, 50 ( 779 SE2d 301 ) (2015) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata precludes not only re-litigation of claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior cause of action, but those which could have been adjudicated therein.”).

2022See, e.g., Cooper, 306 Ga. at 165 (holding that under the doctrine of res judicata, the previous denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal bars a new motion for an out-of-time appeal); Beasley v. State, 298 Ga. 49, 50 (779 SE2d 301) (2015) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata precludes not only re-litigation of claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior cause of action, but those which could have been adjudicated therein.”).

2021See id. at 113 .

2020See Coen v. CDC Software Corp., 304 Ga. 105 ( 816 SE2d 670 ) (2018).

2021“In Georgia, OCGA § 9-12-40 represents a codification of the common law doctrine of res judicata.” Carson v. Brown, 348 Ga. App. 689, 707 (3) (a) ( 824 SE2d 605 ) (2019).

2021“In Georgia, OCGA § 9-12-40 represents a codification of the common law doctrine of res judicata.” Carson v. Brown, 348 Ga. App. 689, 707 (3) (a) ( 824 SE2d 605 ) (2019).

2019See id. (under the doctrine of res judicata, the previous denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal barred new motion for an out-of-time appeal); Beasley v. State , 298 Ga. 49 , 50, 779 S.E.2d 301 (2015) ("[T]he doctrine of res judicata precludes not *367 only re-litigation of claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior cause of action, but those which could have been adjudicated therein.").

2019See id. (under the doctrine of res judicata, the previous denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal barred new motion for an out-of-time appeal); Beasley v. State, 298 Ga. 49, 50 ( 779 SE2d 301 ) (2015) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata precludes not only re- litigation of claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior cause of action, but those which could have been adjudicated therein.”).

1997Under the doctrine of res judicata, "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." OCGA § 9-12-40; Boozer v. Higdon, 252 Ga. 276, 277-278 (1), 313 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390 , hn. 2, 197 S.E. 833 (1938).

1997Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and. their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside.” OCGA § 9-12-40; Boozer v. Higdon, 252 Ga. 276, 277-278 (1) ( 313 SE2d 100 ) (1984); Sumner v Sumner, 186 Ga. 390 , hn. 2 ( 197 SE 833 ) (1938).

2018See Body of Christ Church Overcoming God, Inc. v. Brinson , 287 Ga. 485 , 486, 696 S.E.2d 667 (2010) (The doctrine of res judicata applies where there is "(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 15 See also Azarat Marketing Group v. Dept. of Administrative Affairs , 245 Ga. App. 256 , 257 (1) (a), 537 S.E.2d 99 (2000) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a timely filed responsive pleading." The defendant's

2018See Body of Christ Church Overcoming God, Inc. v. Brinson , 287 Ga. 485 , 486, 696 S.E.2d 667 (2010) (The doctrine of res judicata applies where there is "(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 15 See also Azarat Marketing Group v. Dept. of Administrative Affairs , 245 Ga. App. 256 , 257 (1) (a), 537 S.E.2d 99 (2000) ("Res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a timely filed responsive pleading." The defendant's

2022“Res judicata precludes re-litigation of claims where the cause of action and the parties or their privies are identical and the claim was previously adjudicated on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” (Citation omitted.) Cooper v. State, 306 Ga. 164, 165 (829 SE2d 365) (2019).

2019See also Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 193-194 ( 695 SE2d 244 ) (2010) (same); Rooney v. State, 287 Ga. 1, 2 (2) ( 690 SE2d 804 ) (2010) (explaining that “a sentencing court retains jurisdiction to correct a void sentence at any time,” and addressing the merits of a void-sentence motion filed more than a decade after conviction (citation and punctuation omitted)). 12 See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 306 Ga. 164, 165 ( 829 SE2d 365 ) (2019) (“The trial court was right to deny the second motion for an out-of-time appeal because Cooper’s claim that he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal is barred b