Windom v. Sheffield Enterprises, Inc.

In its order dismissing the plaintiff’s case, the trial court observed: “The reason I dismissed it was that the Supreme Court, in its opinion [Windom v. Easley, 495 So.2d 46 (Ala.1986) ], held that Judge Byrd had ruled on the effectiveness of the amendment [to the subject restrictive covenant]. And it is my opinion that I am bound by the [Court’s] ruling and [that] the present action is barred by what is known as res judicata.”1

*238This order of dismissal is a misreading of our opinion in Windom v. Easley. We acknowledge that certain language in the last paragraph of that opinion may be…