Document: 517 U.S. 793116 S.Ct. 1761135 L.Ed.2d 76 RICHARDS et al.v.JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, al.Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama. No. 95-386. United States Argued March 26, 1996 Decided June 10, Syllabus* Petitioners, who are privately employed in Jefferson County, filed a state-court class action claiming that county's occupation tax violates Federal and Alabama Constitutions. In granting county partial summary judgment, trial court found petitioners' state claims were barred by prior adjudication an brought Birmingham's acting finance director city itself, consolidated with suit three taxpayers, see Bedingfield v. 527 So. 2d 1270, but federal had not been decided case. The respondent intervenor argued on appeal also barred. State agreed, concluding res judicata applied because petitioners adequately represented action. Held: Because received neither notice of, nor sufficient representation in, litigation, adjudication, as matter due process, may bind them thus cannot bar from challenging allegedly unconstitutional deprivation their property. Pp. 4-13. (a) traditional rule extreme application law principles be inconsistent Constitution, Postal Telegraph Cable Co. Newport, 247 U. S. 464, 476, reflects general consensus one is bound judgment litigation which he party. Of course, there exception these when ``privity'' between party second case earlier judgment. 4-6. (b) parties gave no was pending would conclusively resolve legal rights, proceeding have binding effect them, absent parties, only if it so devised ensure those present same conducted full fair consideration common issue. Hansberry Lee, 311 32, 43. plainly does fit this description, reason suppose therein took care protect interests manner suggested or plaintiffs understood behalf taxpayers. Those did provide make up for fact participated opportunity participate 6-10. (c) This mat assume relied taxpayer status complain about alleged misuse public funds other having indirect impact interests, enjoyed wide latitude limiting However, constitutional challenge State's attempt levy personal funds, persuaded nature actions permits deviate Constitution. 10-12. 662 1127, reversed remanded. Stevens, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Justice Stevens 1 37 (1940), we held violate Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment litigants rendered they represented. decision review today presents us basic question somewhat different context. I. 2 Jason Richards Fannie Hill (petitioners) 1991 complaint District validity imposed County Ordinance 1120, adopted 1987. That dismissed Tax Injunction Act, 28 C. Section(s) 1341.1 They then commenced Circuit County. 3 Petitioners represent all nonfederal employees subject tax.2 tax, contains lengthy list exemptions, Equal Protection Clauses similar provisions $10 million annual proceeds pledged Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center period 20 years, permitted intervene support County's defense its tax. 4 moved ground Birmingham itself. separate upheld resulting appeal. See 1270 (1988). After examining course granted motion claims, refused do either Bedingfield. 5 On appeal, well agreed. majority noted Alabama, most States, merits competent jurisdiction precludes relitigation claim "substantial identity parties" "same cause action" presented both suits. 1128 (1995). Moreover, explained, generally "`res matters litigated it, relevant issues could raised suit.'" Ibid. (quoting Heiser Woodruff, 327 726, 735 (1946)). 6 concluded even though mention any issue, met requirements. reasons conclusion: (1) complaints violated equal protection issue appellate briefs, 2d, at 1129; (2) taxpayers respective "essentially identical," 1130; (3) pledging revenues issuing bonds 1989, "could authoritatively establishing occupational asserted plaintiffs." 1130. 7 Maddox dissented. He agreed judge adjudicated 1130-1131. mere theory advanced constituted insufficient barring 1131-1132. 8 We now conclude Court's holding deprived process guaranteed Amendment.3 II. 9 courts free develop own rules protecting against piecemeal resolution disputes. 475 (1918). long held, however, applications doctrine right "fundamental character." Id., 476.4 10 limits court's power estoppel reflect "`in Anglo-American jurisprudence personam designated has made service process.' 40 (1940). . part our `deep-rooted historic tradition everyone should his day court.' 18 Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice Procedure 4449, p. 417 (1981)." Martin Wilks, 490 755, 761-762 (1989). As consequence, "[a] decree among lawsuit resolves rights strangers proceedings." 762; Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University Ill. Foundation, 402 313, 329 (1971). 11 always require order it. Most notably, can said "privity" For example, guardian trustee ward beneficiaries trust. although clearly exception, term used describe various relationships come within definition term. Restatement (Second) Judgments, ch. (1980) (Parties Other Persons Affected Judgments). addition, explained Wilks: 12 recognized when, certain limited circumstances, person, party, someone 41-42 (1940) (`class' `representative' suits); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (same); Montana 440 147, 154-155 (1979) (control litigation). Additionally, where special remedial scheme exists expressly foreclosing successive nonlitigants, example bankruptcy probate, proceedings terminate pre-existing otherwise consistent process. NLRB Bildisco Bildisco, 465 513, 529-530, n. (1984) (`[P]roof must Bankruptcy lost'); Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Pope, 485 478 (1988) (nonclaim statute terminating unsubmitted estate)." S., 762, 2. 13 Here, consider propriety determination. III. 14 begin noting failed rights. failure troubling because, Mullane Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 306 (1950), heard ensured guarantee "has little reality worth unless informed choose himself whether appear default, acquiesce contest." 314; Phillips Petroleum Shutts, 472 797, 812 (1985); Schroeder City New York, 371 208, 212-213 (1962). Nevertheless, respondents ask excuse lack petitioners, concluded, Bedingfield.5 15 Our answer 40-41. There, property owners enforce restrictive covenant purported forbid sale lease defined area "any person colored race." 37-38. By terms effective signed 95 per cent frontage area. At trial, defendants proved signers owned 54 percent frontage. enforceable resolved stipulated signed. 38 (referring Burke Kleiman, 277 App. 519 (1934)). 16 Despite stipulation untrue, Illinois judicata. Lee Hansberry, 372 369, 24 N. (1939). plaintiff she "on herself district," id., 372, 39, members "class," including action, decree. reversed. 17 "familiar present, relationship such legally entitle former stand latter." 42-43. conflict subsequent Even assuming read leave open possibility some suits adequate might cure notice, cf., 40; Eisen Carlisle Jacquelin, 156, 177 (1974); 319, permit here. proceeding, least "so insure issue." 43; cf. 811-812. It plain like description. 19 "taxpayers here," 2d., 1130 (emphasis added), sue class; pleadings purport assert nonparties; nonparties. sued capacity individual official change analysis. assume, not, suing capacity, intended pecuniary simply corporate petitioners.6 result, Hansberry. Nor Thus, contend somehow let alone constitutionally manner, "to attribute assumed exercise." 46. best described "strangers" another, unable provided 154 (1979), Accordingly, prevents being latter's IV. 21 Respondents that, receive kind ordinarily ensure, character renders usual protections inapplicable. invalidation disastrous consequences county, substantial commitments based understanding determined constitutionality argue cases raising kind, people properly regarded real interest 22 requires distinguish two types category using him see, e.g., Massachusetts Mellon, 262 447, 486-489 (1923), Stromberg Board Ed. Bratenahl, 64 Ohio St. 98, 413 1184 (1980), Tallassee ex rel. Brunson, 206 Ala. 169, 89 514 (1921). cases, establish procedures limit number judicial entertained determine accord standing all. form, obviously another deprive court. virtue presenting bring latter type. Cf. ibid. (distinguishing "public" "private" actions). Indeed, previously struck down violation denying practicable contest grounds. Brinkerhoff-Faris Sav. Hill, 281 673 (1930). explained: "We concerned merits, observed plaintiff's arising under Constitution and, consequently, final concern solely accorded primary sense,--whether support. [W]hile adjective substantive State, must, doing, law. Whether through judiciary legislature, existing remedies enforcement right, destroy, is, was, afforded it." 681-682. 25 event, hold here law, large. Corprew Tallapoosa 241 492, 53 (1941) (discussing statutory quo warranto proceedings). To nevertheless "chose action," protected right. Logan Zimmerman Brush 455 422, 429-430 (1982); (relying (1950)); 37. state-law 26 aware governmental private entities prompt determinative challenges important legislation. agree Court, given amount money stake, entitled rely assumption "authoritatively establish[ed]" A freedom precedent rejecting litigant's afford litigant applies seeks hearing prevent subjecting V. 27 reversed, remanded further opinion. ordered. * syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337. 789 F. Supp. 369 (ND Ala.), affirmance order, 983 237 (CA11 1992). joined George Dykes Joan Dykes, Government work county. whose before us. petition scheme, conclusion judicata, entered dismissing writ extent included directing address oral argument 516 ___ (1996). rehearing preserved review. PruneYard Shopping Robins, 447 74, 85-87, (1980). "The rests bottom upon affected, whom privity, litigate jurisdiction. Southern Pacific R. 168 1, 48; Greenleaf Ev., 522-523. essential requisite proceedings. Windsor McVeigh, 93 274, 277; Louisville Nashville Schmidt, 230, 236; Simon Craft, 182 427, 436. And consistently Amendment, named without (Pennoyer Neff, 714, 733; Scott McNeal, 34, 46; Coe Armour Fertilizer Works, 413, 423), cannot, disregarding requirement give conclusive privity therein." 476. suffice preserve one's "[t]he impose absolutely burden voluntary intervention stranger." Chase Nat. Norwalk, 291 431, 441 (1934); Penn-Central Merger N W Inclusion Cases, 389 486, 505, (1968) (noting invited court). need decide officials representatives persons over here, underlying nature. Lockport Citizens Community Action Local Level, Inc., 430 259, 263, (1977) (voting residents suit); 4458, 518 (1981); infra,

Category: 3