788 So.2d 161, 164 (Ala.2000), quoting in turn Weaver v. Hood, 577 So.2d 440, 442 (Ala.1991)). The application of the abatement statute “is guided by ‘whether a judgment in one suit would be res judicata of the other.’ ” Chiepalich v. Coale, 36 So.3d 1, 3 (Ala.2009) (quoting Sessions v. Jack Cole Co., 276 Ala. 10, 12, 158 So.2d 652, 654-55 (1963)). “Where there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the court or as to the identity of the parties, the test for deter- raining [the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata] is whether the issues in the two suits are the same and whether the same evidence would support a recovery in both suits.” Sessions v. Jack Cole Co., 276 Ala. at 13, 158 So.2d at 655; see also Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.1998) (<HOLDING>). “A question presented to determine whether a
holding that for res judicata purposes the cause of action is the same when substantially the same evidence would support a recovery in both actions holding that when the basic wrongful acts pleaded in au actions appear to be the same state and federal law claims constitute the same cause of action for res judicata purposes holding that when the basic wrongful acts pleaded in all actions appear to be the same state and federal law claims constitute the same cause of action for res judicata purposes holding the same recognizing that res judicata does not apply unless the facts and evidence necessary to maintain suit are the same in both actions