Clayton Hinton v. Nate Rolison, 175 So. 3d 1252

Hinton and Rolison entered a 2009 lease/business agreement stating they were "equal partners" sharing debts, responsibilities, and "back end profits" (pools) at Lincoln Road Autoplex.
Hinton alleged he contributed capital (including using his line of credit to buy inventory) and that Rolison withheld profit distributions and blocked access to records.
Hinton sued Rolison and sought an injunction against Credit Acceptance Corporation (which paid pooled financing proceeds to Rolison) to hold those funds pending resolution.
While this circuit-court suit was pending, the parties settled several related disputes in chancery court and executed a Memorandum Settlement Agreement and a Mutual Release; those documents expressly excluded the present circuit-court action from settlement and the chancery court dismissed the settled suits with prejudice.
Rolison moved to dismiss in circuit court, arguing res judicata based on the chancery settlement; Credit Acceptance moved to dismiss the injunction claim for failure to state a claim. The circuit court granted both motions; Hinton appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Hinton's claims against Rolison	Hinton: claims here (profit sharing) are distinct and expressly excluded from the chancery settlement	Rolison: prior settlements/dismissals covered the same subject and thus preclude relitigation	Reversed — res judicata defense waived by settlement terms that expressly excluded this suit; dismissal reversed and remanded
Whether Hinton stated a claim for injunctive relief against Credit Acceptance	Hinton: Credit Acceptance should be enjoined from paying Rolison because those payments are subject to Hinton's equitable claim against Rolison	Credit Acceptance: Hinton lacks standing/contractual relationship and failed to plead a cognizable claim for injunction; priority-jurisdiction argued below	Affirmed — Hinton alleged no legally cognizable claim against Credit Acceptance and alleged only reparable monetary harm, so injunctive relief not warranted

Global Oceanic Enter., Inc. v. Hynum, 857 So. 2d 659 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review for res judicata is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Anderson v. LaVere, 895 So. 2d 828 (Miss. 2004) (four identities required for res judicata)
Norfolk S. Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) (settlement agreements can modify preclusive effect of a dismissal; parties may waive res judicata by contract)
Littleton v. McAdams, 60 So. 3d 169 (Miss. 2011) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)