20 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1870–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Elziegreen2 sentences2018The courts cannot revisit adjudicated claims and "all grounds for, or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re[ ]litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata." Alexander v. Elzie , 621 So.2d 909 , 910 (Miss. 1992). 2013Kimball has no relevance to this case. ¶ 39, Finally, in Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992), the supreme court addressed the issue of claim-splitting: . : Where a claim has been previously litigated, all grounds' for, or defenses to recovery that were availablé to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata. | 5 | 6 |
Quinn v. Estate of Jonesgreen2 sentences2009In applying the doctrine of res judicata, “there are four identities which must be present: (1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made.” Harrison, 891 So.2d at 232 (citing Quinn v. Estate of Jones, 818 So.2d 1148, 1151 (Miss.2002) and Dunaway v. W.H. 2007In applying the doctrine of res judicata, “there are four identities which must be present: (1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made.” Harrison, 891 So. 2d at 232 (citing Quinn v. 4 Estate of Jones, 818 So. 2d 1148, 1151 (Miss. 2002) and Dunaway v. W.H. | 2 | 2 |
Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc.green2 sentences2017“The courts cannot revisit adjudicated claims and ‘all grounds for, or defenses to[,] recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.’ ” Id. (citing Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., 891 So.2d 224, 232 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2005)). 2009“The courts can not revisit adjudicated claims and ‘all grounds for, or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.’ ” Harrison, 891 So.2d at 232 (quoting Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 10. | 1 | 4 |
EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2020Corp. v. Carmichael, 17 So. 3d 1087, 1090 (¶9) (Miss. 2009) (“[C]ourts can not revisit adjudicated claims[,] and all grounds for, or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 8 Contending he was denied use of the property from November 22, 2014,12 thirty days after the second notice of eviction, until May 31, 2018, Turnage estimates that he is “ 2017“The courts cannot revisit adjudicated claims and ‘all grounds for, or defenses to[,] recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata.’ ” Id. (citing Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., 891 So.2d 224, 232 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2005)). | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. Carroll Countygreen1 sentence2018"Under the principle known as 'bar,' res judicata precludes claims which were actually litigated in a previous action." Hill , 17 So.3d at 1084 (¶ 9). | 1 | 1 |
C.R. Daniels, Inc. v. Yazoo Manufacturing Co.green1 sentence1993Co., 641 F. Supp. 205, 210 (S.D.Miss. 1986), the suit at bar was based on open account. | 1 | 1 |
Scottish-American Mortgage Co. v. Bunckleygreen2 sentences1972In Scottish-American Mortgage Company v. Bunckley, 88 Miss. 641, 654 , 41 So. 502, 505 (1906), on suggestion of error we stated: All that was put in issue in the former suit was the claim of complainant to an interest in the land by virtue of two deeds, made, respectively, in 1875 and 1890. 1972In Scottish-American Mortgage Company v. Bunckley, 88 Miss. 641, 654 , 41 So. 502, 505 (1906), on suggestion of error we stated: All that was put in issue in the former suit was the claim of complainant to an interest in the land by virtue of two deeds, made, respectively, in 1875 and 1890. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daryn Traina v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Traina v. United States, 911 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.1990) (stating that it is a well settled rule that inability to refile a suit does not bar dismissal under Rule 4(j)). 1992Traina v. United States, 911 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1990) (stating that it is a well settled rule that inability to refile a suit does not bar dismissal under Rule 4(j)). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
Bobby Leon Gibson v. Williams, Williams & Montgomery, P.A.
green
1 sentence2018"The courts cannot revisit adjudicated claims[,] and all grounds for[ ] or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 21. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mitchell v. Random House, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 1258 (quoting R. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney
green
2 sentences1968In Charles Dowd Box Company v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 , 82 S.Ct. 519 , 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962), the sole question ruled on was whether Section 301 operated to divest a state court of jurisdiction in a suit for violation of a contract between a labor organization and an employer. 1968In Charles Dowd Box Company v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 , 82 S.Ct. 519 , 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962), the sole question ruled on was whether Section 301 operated to divest a state court of jurisdiction in a suit for violation of a contract between a labor organization and an employer. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Lemmon v. Dunn
neutral
1 sentence1953No purpose could be subserved by making the said co-grantors parties to this proceeding other than to enable the other defendants to exhibit a cross-bill against them, and this Court, in the ease of Lemmon, et al. v. Dunn, et al., 61 Miss. 210 , has declared it to be the rule that the court will not require a party to be brought into the suit merely to enable the defendant to exhibit a cross-bill against him. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Hunt v. Potter
green
1 sentence1948The above statute and authority would seem insufficiently clear, but, nevertheless, appel-lees contend that they could elect to sue in either court, citing as their authority Hunt v. Potter, 58 Miss. 96 , and Lawson v. Dean, 144 Miss. 309 , 109 So. 801 , 110 So. 797 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Lawson v. Dean
green
2 sentences1948The above statute and authority would seem insufficiently clear, but, nevertheless, appel-lees contend that they could elect to sue in either court, citing as their authority Hunt v. Potter, 58 Miss. 96 , and Lawson v. Dean, 144 Miss. 309 , 109 So. 801 , 110 So. 797 . 1948The above statute and authority would seem insufficiently clear, but, nevertheless, appel-lees contend that they could elect to sue in either court, citing as their authority Hunt v. Potter, 58 Miss. 96 , and Lawson v. Dean, 144 Miss. 309 , 109 So. 801 , 110 So. 797 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Nash v. State
neutral
1 sentence1948The above statute and authority would seem insufficiently clear, but, nevertheless, appel-lees contend that they could elect to sue in either court, citing as their authority Hunt v. Potter, 58 Miss. 96 , and Lawson v. Dean, 144 Miss. 309 , 109 So. 801 , 110 So. 797 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Price v. Crone
green
1 sentence1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Spight v. Waldron
green
1 sentence1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Laughlin v. O'Reiley
neutral
2 sentences1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. 1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Zetterlund v. Stratton
neutral
1 sentence1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Tresher v. McElroy
green
1 sentence1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Reed v. Reed
green
2 sentences1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. 1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Kissel v. Eaton
green
1 sentence1938Price v. Crone, 44 Miss. 571 ; Spight v. Waldron, 51 Miss. 356 ; 7 R.C.L. 815; 47 C.J. 354; Laughlin v. O'Reiley, *Page 878 92 Miss. 121 , 45 So. 193 ; Tresher v. McElroy, 90 Fla. 372 , 106 So. 79 ; Kissel v. Eaton, 64 Ind. 248 ; Reed v. Reed, 122 Mich. 77 , 80 N.W. 996 , 80 Am. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Long v. Stanley
green
1 sentence1922In Long v. Stanley, 79 Miss. 298 , 30 So. 823 , it is said that the complainant must shoAV: First, title in himself from the government down; or, second, title in himself by adverse possession; or, third, title in himself from the defendant; or, fourth, that the parties to the suit claim under a common source, the complainant having a better title from that source. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. Keyes
green
2 sentences1922In Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. Keyes, 113 Miss. 742 , 74 So. 619 , this court held that, in a suit to confirm, plaintiff must plead and prove a perfect title, and prevail upon the strength of his own claim. 1922In Gilchrist-Fordney Co. v. Keyes, 113 Miss. 742 , 74 So. 619 , this court held that, in a suit to confirm, plaintiff must plead and prove a perfect title, and prevail upon the strength of his own claim. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Dozier v. Joyce
neutral
1 sentence1870Dozier v. Joice, 8 Porter, 303 ; 11 Wend., 54 ; 11 Johns.; 14 ib.; 15ib. | 1 | 1870–1870 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.