Logourl black
From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...

Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank

United States Supreme Court
474 U.S. 518 (1986)


Facts

Parsons Steel, Inc. (plaintiff), a company owned by Jim and Melba Parsons, sued First Alabama Bank (bank) (defendant) in Alabama state court. A state court suit, filed in February 1979, alleged that the bank fraudulently induced Parsons to allow a third party to take control and eventually ownership of a subsidiary of Parsons Steel. The subsidiary eventually went bankrupt in April 1979. In May 1979, Parsons sued the bank in the United States District Court for the District of Alabama, alleging a violation of the Bank Holding Company Act. The federal case went to trial first, where the jury returned a verdict for Parsons. On a motion by the bank, however, the judge entered a judgment n.o.v. for the bank. After the conclusion of the federal case, the bank raised the defense of res judicata in the state case, arguing that the state claims could have been raised in federal court and were thus precluded from being litigated in state court. The state court rejected this argument. The state case went to trial and the jury returned a verdict for Parsons in the amount of $4 million. Following the state court verdict, the bank returned to federal court and sought an injunction against enforcement of the state verdict, arguing that res judicata prevented the entry of a verdict on the state counts. The district court agreed, holding that the state claims should have been raised with the federal claims in federal court. The district court enjoined Parsons from enforcing the verdict. Parsons appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that the injunction was appropriate under the “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act. The court of appeals did not address the preclusive effect of the state courts decision denying the bank’s earlier res judicata argument. Parsons appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 136,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.