Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Protection Dist., 85-145
| Decision Date | 04 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-145,85-145 |
| Citation | 287 Ark. 268,697 S.W.2d 916 |
| Parties | Marvin BAILEY, Joe Glover, and George Lankford, Appellants, v. HARRIS BRAKE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wilson & Patterson by Mike Wilson, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Larry D. Vaught, Little Rock, for appellees.
The Harris Brake Fire Protection District was created in 1980 by ordinance of the Perry County Quorum Court pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 20-923 to -943 (Supp.1985). In 1981, a suit was brought in chancery court seeking a judgment which would declare the district to be void because of failure to conform with the above cited statutes in forming the district. At that time, the constitutionality of the statutes was not challenged. The Chancellor upheld the formation of the district. This Court affirmed that decision. Langford v. Brand, 274 Ark. 426, 626 S.W.2d 198 (1981).
In 1984, a second suit was brought by the same plaintiffs, again seeking a judgment declaring the district to be void, but this time alleging that the cited statutes were unconstitutional. The Chancellor again refused to void the district. We affirm.
Professor Vestal has explained the distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion as separate facets of the concept of res judicata. His explanation is helpful in this case:
The concept of res judicata, which is not at all a simple one, encompasses at least two distinct facets. For the sake of clarity it is desirable to distinguish the foreclosing of further litigation on a cause of action (which may be called claim preclusion) from the preclusion of further litigation of an issue (which may properly be called issue preclusion).
Vestal, Preclusion/Res Judicata Variables, 1965 Wash.U.L.Q. 158 (1965).
Our decision in this case is based upon the well established law of the claim preclusion facet of res judicata. It bars relitigation of a subsequent suit when: (1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully contested in good faith; (4) both suits involve the same claim or cause of action; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies. Wells v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 272 Ark. 481, 616 S.W.2d 718 (1981). Further, claim preclusion bars not only the relitigation of issues which were actually litigated in the first suit, but also those which could have been litigated but were not. Wells v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, supra; and Lovell v. Mixon, 719 F.2d 1373 (8th Cir.1983). In contrast, issue preclusion, or the collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata, is limited to those matters previously at issue which were directly and necessarily adjudicated. Smith v. Roane, 284 Ark. 568, 683 S.W.2d 935 (1985). However, both types of preclusion are applicable only when the party against whom the earlier decision is being asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question. Lovell v. Mixon, supra.
In the case at bar it is clear that: (1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. State
...Issue preclusion along with claim preclusion constitute the doctrine of res judicata. Carwell, supra; Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Prot. Dist., 287 Ark. 268, 697 S.W.2d 916 (1985). The rationale for the doctrine of res judicata is the policy of the law to end litigation, once an issue or cla......
-
Gahr v. Trammel, 85-1612
...directly and necessarily adjudicated in the previous litigation, forecloses Gahr's action for violation of his first amendment rights. See id. As we noted earlier, Gahr's hearing before the school board concentrated on whether Gahr actually made the false accusations against the school pers......
-
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Carco Rentals, Inc.
...or their privies. See e.g., Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316 Ark. 208, 211, 871 S.W.2d 386 (1994); Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Protection Dist., 287 Ark. 268, 697 S.W.2d 916 (1985). However in reviewing the material submitted by the parties from the Eastern District of Oklahoma, it is clear t......
-
Villines Iii et al v Harris
...the same claim or cause of action; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies." Bailey v. Harris Brake Fire Protection District, 287 Ark. 268, 697 S.W.2d 916 (1985). While the county court is not a court of general jurisdiction, it is a court of record, Ark. Code Ann. § 14......