Haley v. Regions Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, to contradict “direct and positive” evidence on an issue, circumstantial evidence must “must be inconsistent with” the evidence to be rebutted, “or if consistent, it must demand a finding of fact on the issue in favor of” its proponent (punctuation omitted)
• explaining that two causes of action were not identical for res judicata purposes because the prior action and the current lawsuit depended on a substantially different set of facts and involved questions that arose after and were not settled by the Court’s decision in the prior action
• explaining that two causes of action were not identical for res judicata purposes because the prior action and the current lawsuit depended on a substantially different set of facts and involved questions that arose after and were not settled by the Court’s decision in the prior action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).