Cecil Tutt v. Lewis Doby

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a finding of the precise amount of rent past due was not entitled to collateral estoppel effect because the prior proceeding centered on the issue of eviction and the issue of the amount of rent was not actually before the court and was not “necessarily” decided
• applying res judicata where first judgment was a default judgment for rent and second suit involved housing regulations issues
• applying res judicata where first judgment was a default judgment for rent and second suit involved housing regulations issues
• no collateral estoppel effect given to default judgment obtained by landlord for possession without personal service in second suit for amount of rent due
• in an action for possession, “amount of back rent due was not genuinely before the court,” and cannot be said to have been decided for estoppel purposes
• default judgment in action for possession does not bar tenant from litigating amount of rent due in a subsequent action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).