continues to sit on its hands, as it were, will it continue to profit from inactivity? Is the City better off not hiring anyone to repair the conditions leading to the flooding because doing so will ensure that causation cannot be determined? Smith and others in his position, after all, cannot legally hire someone to work on the piping for the culvert or the drainage system that is Owned and operated by the City; thus, they are at a distinct disadvantage and must wait anxiously for the City to correct a long-standing problem that is sure to persist. I am concerned that the courts are encouraging the City’s profitable idleness by closing their eyes to substantial evidence that should have gone before a jury. 1 . See, e.g., Hilliard v. City of Huntsville, 585 So.2d 889, 893 (Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>); Long v. City of Athens, 24 So.3d 1110, 1116
holding that in a declaratory judgment action it is the character of the impending action not the plaintiffs defense that determines whether there is federal question jurisdiction holding that final judgment on the merits in one action bars any further claim based on the same nucleus of facts for it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute the cause of action not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies  holding that the viability of a negligence action against a municipality under  1147190 determines the success or failure of a nuisance action based upon the same facts holding that the trial court in a declaratory judgment action abuses its discretion when it determines any of the ultimate facts upon which recovery is predicated in the underlying case holding that a single cause of action arises out of the same set of facts