28 U.S.C. § 1738

251 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Theodis Brown v. ST. Louis Police Dep't OF the City OF ST. Louis
  691 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-20 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal suit was barred by res judicata because the claims and parties were identical to those previously litigated in state court, and the new federal claims could have been raised in the state proceedings.
• Blanche Mitchell v. Nat'l Broad. Co. & S. Theodore Nygreen
  553 F.2d 265· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 73×
  A state administrative determination, affirmed by the state's highest appellate court, has res judicata effect on a subsequent federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Morgan v. City OF Rawlins & Abe DeHerrera
  792 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the federal action based on res judicata, as the prior state court proceeding did not constitute a full and fair adjudication of the § 1983 claims, and the defendant DeHerrera was not in privity with the City for the purp
• Verone Marin Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber
  681 F.2d 1015· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 71×
  The court held that a prior Florida divorce did not divest the California court of jurisdiction over property and support issues, and that while a cash offset for property division was permissible, the amount awarded in default exceeded the relief prayed for in the complaint.
• The Nash Cnty. Bd. OF Educ. v. The Biltmore Co.
  640 F.2d 484· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 66×
  A prior state court consent decree in an antitrust action brought by the Attorney General bars a subsequent federal antitrust suit by a school board, even if the federal suit is based on federal law and the state suit on state law, provided the causes of action and parties (or th
• Winters v. Abe Lavine
  574 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-16 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's claim for Christian Science nurse services was barred by res judicata and that abstention was appropriate for the practitioner services claim.
• Grady Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co.
  667 F.2d 1162· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-08 ·cited 61×
  The court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, not on the basis of the employee exclusion, but on the grounds of judicial estoppel due to the plaintiff's contradictory prior assertion of employee status.
• Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  721 F.2d 550· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 60×
  The judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding that the appellants received minimal due process and that Donnelly was precluded from proceeding due to prior state court dismissals.
• Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  861 F.2d 1248· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 57×
  The federal district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the indemnity cross-claim after removal, and the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining the state court. However, the district court erred in denying attorney's fees to the cross-claimant under Florida law.
• The Cnty. OF Cook v. Midcon Corp.
  773 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied collateral estoppel to bar the plaintiffs' RICO claims, as the essential issues regarding the corporate reorganization and related financial practices were already litigated and decided in prior state court proceedings.
• Ultracashmere House, Ltd. v. Meyer
  664 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a federal court may deny a stay of state proceedings and an order compelling arbitration when the party seeking relief has unduly delayed and the state court has already adjudicated the issues.
• Folsom Inv. Co., Inc. v. Maxie R. Moore
  681 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 50×
  A private party invoking a presumptively valid state attachment statute is entitled to good faith immunity from monetary liability under § 1983, and res judicata does not bar a claim if the constitutional validity of the attachment was not litigated in state court.
• Marrese v. Am. Acad. OF Orthopaedic Surgeons
  726 F.2d 1150· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery order and contempt citation. It asserts that while the discovery order could have been improved, the Academy's defiance of the trial court constituted contempt, and the contempt ci
• United States v. Hairston
  888 F.2d 1349· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the conviction and the restitution order, holding that specific findings of fact are not always required for restitution orders if the record provides an adequate basis for appellate review, and that contractors can be considered victims under the VWPA.
• Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, but failed to state a cause of action under § 1985. The court also held the claim was not barred by res judicata
• Hazen Research, Inc. v. Omega Minerals, Inc.
  497 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Colorado judgment was entitled to full faith and credit because the Colorado court had properly obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
• Gutierrez v. Lynch
  826 F.2d 1534· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's due process claims were barred by the Full Faith and Credit Statute and res judicata, and his conspiracy claim lacked specificity, while his privacy claim was not an invasion of a constitutionally protected right.
• Curry v. Baker
  802 F.2d 1302· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering a new primary election, finding that the party subcommittee's determination of the election contest based on statistical evidence and expert opinion was permissible and that prior rulings precluded relitigation of certain i
• Davis v. United States Steel Supply
  688 F.2d 166· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 42×
  A prior state court adjudication of employment discrimination claims bars a subsequent federal § 1981 action under res judicata, even if the plaintiff did not initiate the state proceedings.
• Wakeen v. Hoffman House, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a prior state court decision on an employment discrimination claim bars a subsequent federal Title VII action under res judicata, and that a class member who has not filed an EEOC charge cannot intervene to replace a dismissed class representative.
• Mandarino v. Mardyth Pollard
  718 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1983-10-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant's federal claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same operative facts as his prior state court action, and the appellant failed to properly raise the declaratory judgment exception argument on appeal.
• Alf KEY v. Mrs. Louise P. Wise
  629 F.2d 1049· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the state court's assumption of jurisdiction was not open to collateral attack, and therefore the federal court's dismissal based on res judicata was proper.
• Hagee v. City OF Evanston
  729 F.2d 510· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' federal damages suit was barred by res judicata under Illinois law because the claims could have been raised in their prior state court action arising from the same set of facts.
• Gregory v. Chehi
  843 F.2d 111· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that claim preclusion barred the plaintiff's action against the Township and its officials in their official capacities because the state court had already adjudicated the wrongful discharge claim. However, issue preclusion did not bar the claim against the individ
• Cora Hubbard Williams v. Cora Williams Murdoch & Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co.
  330 F.2d 745· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's federal due process claim by the lower court on res judicata grounds was improper because neither the Orphans' Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had actually adjudicated the due process issue.
• McDONALD v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  821 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal lawsuit was barred by res judicata because the claims and parties were identical or in privity with those previously litigated in Florida state court.
• S. JAM, Inc. v. Robinson
  675 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that res judicata applies to § 1983 actions when parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims in prior state court proceedings.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corp.
  391 F.2d 13· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-29 ·cited 32×
• Dixon v. Deputy Sheriff Donald Richer
  922 F.2d 1456· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the deputies were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity because their alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was not objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and violated clearly established law.
• Robi v. Five Platters, Inc.
  838 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in reversing the New York judgment's preclusive effect by applying the California judgment's issue preclusion, and affirmed the district court's application of claim preclusion to the Robi cases.
• Lywanna Cooper v. City OF N. Olmsted
  795 F.2d 1265· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prior state court decision denying unemployment benefits based on 'just cause' for discharge does not collaterally estop a subsequent federal discrimination claim, as the issues are not identical. The court also reversed a finding of retaliatory discharge du
• Plaine v. B.C. McCABE
  790 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The issue of merger price fairness under state law is not identical to the issue of compensable injury under federal securities law section 14(e).
• Cable Holdings OF Battlefield, Inc. v. Cooke
  764 F.2d 1466· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and exercised pendent jurisdiction over related summary judgment issues. The grant of partial summary judgment and dissolution of a preliminary restraint were vacated, while the
• Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc.
  754 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the "last in time" rule of res judicata dictates that the New York District Court's order compelling arbitration was binding on the California District Court, entitling the petitioner to an order compelling arbitration.
• Sylvander v. NEW England Home FOR Little Wanderers
  584 F.2d 1103· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the § 1983 claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody disputes.
• LOS Angeles Branch NAACP v. LOS Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
  750 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 29×
• Lettie D. Evans v. Syracuse City Sch. Dist.
  704 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting the defendant leave to amend its answer to assert res judicata nearly three years after the initial answer, on the eve of trial, and without compelling justification for the delay.
• United States v. Yitchak Ijo Perlmuter
  693 F.2d 1290· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 28×
• Trudy Unger v. Consol. Foods Corp.
  693 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 28×
  A prior state court judgment on a discrimination claim must be given preclusive effect under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, even in a Title VII action, unless specific exceptions apply.
• Lamb Enters., Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff
  549 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court vacated the permanent injunction against state court judges and employees, and reversed the judgment against the private defendant.
• Dorey v. Dorey
  609 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a federal court in a diversity action must give full faith and credit to a foreign money judgment, but enforcing future alimony installments is governed by the law of the enforcing state, and sanctions for discovery violations are permissible under Federal Rul
• Browning v. Navarro
  887 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that res judicata bars Holloway's claim that the state court judgment was fraudulent, as it could have been raised in a prior federal action. The court also found the clean hands doctrine did not provide a basis to vacate the judgment.
• Watts v. Odom Graves
  720 F.2d 1416· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 26×
  A guilty plea does not preclude a subsequent Section 1983 action for Fourth Amendment violations that were not litigated in the state proceedings, and dismissal of claims regarding warrantless conversation interception was proper.
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• Whitfield v. City OF Knoxville
  756 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was not barred by res judicata because the claim could not have been timely filed in the prior state court action due to federal filing and deferral requirements. The court also affirmed the den
• Gargiul v. Tompkins
  704 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-29 ·cited 25×
  A teacher has a constitutional right to privacy, encompassing bodily integrity, which includes the right to refuse examination by a doctor of the opposite sex.
• Calvin L. Schuster, M.D. v. Martin
  861 F.2d 1369· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred the federal lawsuit because the issue of procedural due process violation was actually litigated and determined in a prior state court action.
• Murphy v. Gallagher
  761 F.2d 878· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the prior state court judgment, under New York's collateral estoppel doctrine and the Full Faith and Credit Statute, precluded the plaintiffs from relitigating issues central to their federal securities law claims.
• Gen. Foods Corp. & Rich-SeaPak Corp. v. The Mass. Dep't OF Pub. Health
  648 F.2d 784· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-13 ·cited 24×
  A member of a trade association who finances litigation brought by the association on behalf of its members is bound by the judgment, but a related corporation is not bound solely by the other corporation's membership and stock ownership.
• Ali Farred v. J.M. Hicks
  915 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing official-capacity claims and applying collateral estoppel without proper notice, and that the police officers were not in privity with the state for collateral estoppel purposes under Georgia law.