28 U.S.C. § 1738

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

• Harris Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Ellis
  810 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 23×
• Patzer v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univ. OF Wis. Sys. & State Dep't of Admin.
  763 F.2d 851· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 23×
  An action for back pay under Title VII is not barred by res judicata when the plaintiff previously obtained administrative relief affirmed by a state court, if state law did not permit back pay awards at the time of the administrative decision. A motion for attorneys' fees for st
• Koch v. City OF Hutchinson
  814 F.2d 1489· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's grant of judgment n.o.v. because the fire marshal's report, made in his official capacity, did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.
• Torres v. Rebarchak
  814 F.2d 1219· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's equitable claims were barred by res judicata due to the state court's dismissal with prejudice, but her damage claims were not barred by the rule against claim splitting because the state court had expressly dismissed them without prejudice.
• Sykes v. McDOWELL
  786 F.2d 1098· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that state administrative proceedings did not bar the deputy sheriff's federal First Amendment claim, submitting the protected speech issue to the jury was not plain error, and the damages awarded were not excessive.
• Garrett v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  818 F.2d 1515· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without first ruling on the plaintiff's discovery motion, and that the state court proceedings did not collaterally estop the plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment claim.
• Gorin v. Elton S. Osborne, Jr., M.D.
  756 F.2d 834· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 21×
  A prior state court affirmance of an administrative ruling is entitled to res judicata and collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal civil rights action, even if the state court's review was limited to an 'any evidence' standard.
• Harris v. Jacobs
  621 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that an inmate's claim of denial of access to private, non-prison medical care at his own expense was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel from a prior state habeas judgment finding adequate prison medical care.
• Alleghany Corp. v. Haase
  896 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  State administrative agencies cannot concede immunity from federal law; they must comply with federal law and the Constitution without waiting for a judicial order.
• Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Dolphin Stadium Corp.
  878 F.2d 1360· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied res judicata and collateral estoppel to bar claims previously litigated in state courts, but that the zoning hearing itself lacked the procedural safeguards for administrative preclusion.
• LaSALLE Nat'l Bank OF Chicago under Trs. Numbered 40244 v. The Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  856 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the present federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not barred by the prior Illinois state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata because the two actions do not involve the same cause of action under Illinois law.
• Frazier v. King
  873 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The majority found that neither federal nor state claim preclusion rules barred the plaintiff's § 1983 claim. The dissenting judge disagreed with the suggestion that a federal claim preclusion rule could apply.
• Eilrich v. Remas
  839 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 18×
  Collateral estoppel bars a federal civil rights claim if the same issues were resolved in a prior administrative proceeding that would be given preclusive effect under state law, even if that proceeding was not judicially reviewed.
• Jaffe v. Grant
  793 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction over the counterclaim and properly gave full faith and credit to the state court's judgment, and that the sanctions imposed were just.
• Frier v. City OF Vandalia
  770 F.2d 699· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal due process claim was barred by claim preclusion due to a prior state court replevin judgment.
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  752 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of state procedures, and that pursuing state judicial remedies can constitute action under color of state law.
• Am. Mannex Corp. v. Charlton P. Rozands
  462 F.2d 688· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 18×
  The federal court is bound by the Louisiana doctrine of judicial estoppel, as applied by the district court, to give conclusive effect to the prior state court determination of the constitutional issue.
• Kelleran v. Slavko Andrijevic
  825 F.2d 692· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 17×
  Bankruptcy courts must give preclusive effect to state court default judgments unless specific exceptions like fraud or lack of jurisdiction apply, and cannot disregard them based on perceived lack of merit.
• Buckhalter v. Pepsi-Cola Gen. Bottlers, Inc.
  768 F.2d 842· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's race discrimination claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 were barred by the doctrine of administrative res judicata because the Illinois Human Rights Commission acted in a judicial capacity and provided a full and fair opportunity to lit
• First Ala. Bank OF Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
  747 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that federalism principles require according full faith and credit to state court judgments, even if the federal court disagrees with them.
• Rollins v. Dwyer
  666 F.2d 141· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prior state court judgment, which was final and on the merits, precluded relitigation of the claim for attorney fees under the doctrine of res judicata, even though the state court did not explicitly rule on the attorney fees issue.
• Americana of Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Kaplus
  368 F.2d 431· 3d Cir.· 1966-10-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a default judgment from the Superior Court of Puerto Rico is entitled to full faith and credit in federal courts, and that Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status does not remove it from the purview of statutes like 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
• Jalil v. Avdel Corp.
  873 F.2d 701· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding pretext for retaliatory discharge, thus reversing summary judgment on that claim.
• Est. of Herman Borax v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  349 F.2d 666· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-30 ·cited 15×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the Tax Court's decision, finding that a New York judgment invalidating a Mexican divorce is entitled to full faith and credit and bars collateral challenge.
• Sullivan v. The City OF Pittsburgh
  811 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal plaintiffs had standing, the district court did not err in refusing to abstain, the statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and the district court did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Act.
• Delmus Punton v. The City OF Seattle
  805 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The Washington state court judgment reinstating Punton and awarding back pay does not preclude him from bringing a separate § 1983 action for damages and attorney's fees.
• Cameron v. Fogarty
  806 F.2d 380· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 14×
  A conviction for the offense for which a person was arrested bars a subsequent civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging arrest without probable cause, based on common-law principles incorporated into § 1983.
• Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. v. Webster
  796 F.2d 252· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Bechtel failed to make the necessary strong showing to justify enjoining the state court action under the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception.
• Simanonok v. Germaine B. Simanonok
  787 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's due process claims were not wholly meritless and required further proceedings.
• Sharpley v. C.W. Davis
  786 F.2d 1109· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 14×
  Federal courts must give full faith and credit to state court judgments, precluding litigation of issues that were or could have been raised in state proceedings.
• Kiowa Tribe OF Oklahoma v. Lewis
  777 F.2d 587· 10th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Tribe's federal action was precluded by the prior state court judgment under res judicata and collateral estoppel, but reversed the award of attorney's fees against the Tribe.
• Gabor G. Kovats v. Rutgers
  749 F.2d 1041· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in giving preclusive effect to the state court decision because the state court did not resolve the state law issue of whether a property interest in tenure existed, and instead relied on procedural grounds.
• Joel and Patty Derish v. SAN Mateo-Burlingame Bd. OF Realtors
  724 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 14×
  A prior state court judgment on the merits under the Cartwright Act bars a subsequent federal court suit under the Sherman Act based on the same claim and facts, even though federal antitrust claims fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• MAH TOI v. Brownell
  219 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1955-02-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a California superior court order establishing birth facts is prima facie evidence, not conclusive, and can be rebutted by other evidence.
• Diginet v. W. Union ATS
  958 F.2d 1388· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 13×
  The court should certify issues of state law to the Illinois Supreme Court rather than deciding them itself.
• Greening v. Moran
  953 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that abstention under Younger was appropriate when the federal suit was filed, but claim preclusion applies now that state proceedings have concluded. Claims against the Trust Fund were dismissed for lack of standing. Sanctions were affirmed.
• Mujahid Farid v. Smith
  850 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 12×
  A prior state court judgment precludes claims for declaratory or equitable relief and relitigation of policy constitutionality, but not claims for damages where the state court lacked jurisdiction to award them.
• Nichols v. City OF ST. Louis
  837 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior state administrative and judicial decision, which found termination for cause, precluded relitigation of an age discrimination claim under the ADEA due to issue preclusion.
• Mitsue Takahashi v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Livingston Union Sch. Dist.
  783 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 12×
  A federal court must give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given under the law of the state where the judgment was rendered, barring subsequent federal claims based on the same primary right.
• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal.
  716 F.2d 1285· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because res judicata, based on the California Supreme Court's denial of review, barred Southern Pacific's preemption claim.
• Jones v. O.D. Gann
  703 F.2d 513· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims against the city and mayor, but not against individual defendants Gann, Griffin, and Crane, as their involvement was not shown to have been adjudicated in prior proceedings.
• Howell v. State BAR OF Tex.
  674 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Howell's civil rights action, as neither jurisdictional nor res judicata bars prevented its adjudication on the merits.
• Glenny Williams v. Ocean Transp. Lines, Inc.
  425 F.2d 1183· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-24 ·cited 12×
  A federal court can apply its own collateral estoppel rules in a federal question case, even if the first judgment was in a diversity case, especially when an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship exists.
• Benjamin v. Coughlin
  905 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court properly applied collateral estoppel to the haircut regulation and that the regulation, as well as restrictions on congregate prayer and headgear, were constitutional under the Turner/Shabazz standard, while the dietary claim was inadequatel
• Guild Wineries AND Distilleries v. Whitehall Co., Ltd.
  853 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission's decision had claim preclusive effect, requiring the federal court to give it the same deference as a state court would.
• Trujillo v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  775 F.2d 1359· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 11×
  Federal courts must give preclusive effect to state court judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, even in Title VII actions, if state law would give preclusive effect, regardless of which party initiated the state court proceedings.
• LEE v. Winston
  717 F.2d 888· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  913 F.2d 1064· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte after motions in limine without proper notice and opportunity for the plaintiff to present evidence. It also held that the plaintiff's federal claims were not barred by claim preclusion due to a
• Welch v. Johnson
  907 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims arising from the plaintiff's discharge were barred by res judicata, but the claim regarding denial of a promotion was not. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the discharge-related claims and reversed it on the promotion
• Swapshire v. Baer
  865 F.2d 948· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a state court judgment affirming an administrative discharge decision has preclusive effect in a federal civil rights action, and that jury instructions on intentional discrimination were proper.