28 U.S.C. § 1738

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

• Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron
  859 F.2d 1033· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the discoverability of fraud is a material fact issue for summary judgment and that the constitutionality of Florida's statute of repose as applied to fraud is an unsettled question of Florida law.
• Robert Barnes (86-6261) & Joe Thompson (87-5776) v. McDOWELL
  848 F.2d 725· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while state administrative findings of sexual harassment may have preclusive effect on the justification for discharge, they do not preclude a federal claim that the discharge was motivated by retaliation for protected speech. The court also held that an emplo
• Wozniak v. Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  845 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Wozniaks' Section 1983 claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, as the issues and claims could have and were litigated in the prior state court mandamus action. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Leaman v. Ohio Dep't OF Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities
  825 F.2d 946· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voluntary election to sue in the Ohio Court of Claims constituted a waiver of her federal claims against state employees, as the Ohio statute provided a reasonable alternative forum and remedy.
• United States v. Ford Motor Co.
  814 F.2d 1099· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 10×
  A state court consent order cannot vacate a federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act, as final authority rests with the EPA and federal courts.
• Leal v. Krajewski
  803 F.2d 332· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prior state court summary judgment barred the federal suit under Indiana's claim preclusion doctrine.
• Gahr v. Trammel
  796 F.2d 1063· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts must give preclusive effect to state court judgments in § 1983 actions if the state proceedings provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claims, barring Gahr's constitutional claims.
• Bergeron v. Est. OF William Loeb
  777 F.2d 792· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Nevada Supreme Court's judgment, which barred the plaintiff's claim against the estate, was res judicata and entitled to full faith and credit, precluding federal review of the constitutional claims. However, the Nevada judgment did not preclude claims aga
• Bottini v. Sadore Mgmt. Corp.
  764 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 10×
  A prior state administrative agency's finding of no probable cause on a Title VII claim does not preclude a federal court trial de novo, as the agency ruling does not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the discrimination claim.
• Vandenplas v. City OF Muskego
  753 F.2d 555· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims barred by res judicata from prior state court proceedings were properly dismissed, and that the jury verdict on excessive force was supported by the evidence.
• Gargiul v. Tompkins
  739 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts must give prior state court proceedings the same preclusive effect under § 1983 as the state courts themselves would afford them, as mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Statute.
• Friarton Ests. Corp. v. The City OF NEW York
  681 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata due to prior state court litigation of the same issues, including constitutional claims.
• Gallagher v. Frye
  631 F.2d 127· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff's federal civil rights claims are not barred by res judicata if they assert a different wrong and seek relief beyond that sought in a prior state court action to enforce an administrative order.
• Donald v. Sheriff Clarence Jones of Dallas Cnty.
  445 F.2d 601· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the amended statute was a procedural change that did not deprive the defendant of a substantial right, and thus its application was not an ex post facto violation. The court also found that the defendant's prior conviction, even with a pardon, was valid for en
• Porter v. Wilson
  419 F.2d 254· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-19 ·cited 10×
  The federal district court was bound by the Arizona Supreme Court's decision regarding the hotel's ownership, even if that decision was erroneous, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Erie doctrine.
• In re Hendrix v. Page
  986 F.2d 195· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-17 ·cited 9×
  A bankruptcy discharge injunction does not automatically bar a suit against the debtor's liability insurer, and a bankruptcy court can modify the injunction to allow such a suit, even if the state court previously dismissed the suit based on the injunction.
• McINNES v. State OF Cal.
  943 F.2d 1088· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 9×
  Unreviewed state administrative decisions lack preclusive effect in subsequent Title VII actions, even if state law would give them preclusive effect.
• In re Shuler v. Simpson & Co.
  722 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 9×
  A bankruptcy court is not bound by a state court's conclusory finding of false pretenses in a default judgment when determining debt dischargeability, as the state court record must contain specific facts demonstrating the false pretenses under federal bankruptcy standards.
• Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction and that the Engle Phase I findings can only have issue preclusive effect, not claim preclusive effect, because they did not establish liability.
• Gash Assocs. v. Vill. OF Rosemont
  995 F.2d 726· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was impermissibly seeking to overturn a state court judgment through a federal collateral attack, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• In re Brady v. City OF Brady
  936 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court was required to give full faith and credit to the state court's judgment, even if erroneous, because the state court had jurisdiction and its decision was binding.
• United States v. United States Currency IN THE Amount OF $228
  895 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Due Process clause does not require a court to inform a defendant of the possibility of a civil in rem forfeiture proceeding before accepting a guilty plea, as forfeiture is not a direct consequence of the plea. The court also affirmed that the defendant w
• McNASBY v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
  888 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Pennsylvania common law and statute do not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing their Title VII claims in federal court because the state administrative agency and courts lacked original jurisdiction over Title VII actions.
• Peduto v. City OF N. Wildwood
  878 F.2d 725· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 8×
  Applying New Jersey's claim preclusion rules to bar federal claims previously litigated in state court does not violate due process if the state court provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims.
• Kelley v. TYK Refractories Co.
  860 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's findings regarding voluntary termination do not have collateral estoppel effect on a federal § 1981 discrimination claim because the issues and public policies are not identical.
• Am. Steel Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Davidson & Richardson Constr. Co.
  847 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the summary judgment, arguing that the mailing of service to 'Zed' instead of 'Fred' Davidson is not a jurisdictional defect under Texas law.
• Motilal Maurya v. Peabody Coal Co.
  823 F.2d 933· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state court dismissal for untimeliness, operating as an adjudication on the merits under state law, has preclusive effect under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 and bars a subsequent federal Title VII claim.
• Brown v. J.I. Case Co.
  813 F.2d 848· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and 28 U.S.C. § 1738 because the state court judgment reviewing the administrative proceedings was final and entitled to preclusive effect. The court also held that the trial court di
• Thournir v. Meyer
  803 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff had not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her constitutional claim in the prior state court proceeding, thus preclusion did not apply.
• Scroggins v. State OF Kan.
  802 F.2d 1289· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying res judicata to bar the federal discrimination suit because the state administrative and judicial review proceedings did not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits of the discrimination claim.
• Krison v. Nehls
  767 F.2d 344· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal court must give preclusive effect to a prior state court judgment under the Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, if the state proceedings afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, even if the claim involves a federal due
• Tyler v. Milt Harper
  744 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied collateral estoppel to bar the relitigation of claims that were fully and fairly litigated in state court, and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• Hickman v. Elec. Keyboarding, Inc.
  741 F.2d 230· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's race discrimination claim was barred by res judicata because he was either in privity with the state agency that litigated his claim or was a named party in the state court proceedings.
• Bailey v. Ness
  733 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The district court improperly dismissed the civil rights action; it should have stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the state court criminal appeal.
• In re the Arb. between Towers v. Brown
  732 F.2d 345· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prior state court order denying arbitration, even if erroneous under federal law, is res judicata in federal court if California law would give it preclusive effect.
• Kutzik v. Young
  730 F.2d 149· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-21 ·cited 8×
  A prior state court judgment dismissing a breach of contract claim based on sovereign immunity has claim preclusive effect on a subsequent federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the federal claims involve different legal theories or parties in privity.
• O'Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc.
  439 So. 2d 982· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-10-25 ·cited 8×
  John O'Brien appealed a summary judgment dismissing his state court action against Brickell Townhouse, Inc. and others on res judicata grounds, based on a prior final judgment in federal court on the identical cause of action. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that th
• Dash, Inc. v. The Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd.
  683 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that California's procedure for revoking liquor licenses, including administrative hearings and appellate review, provided sufficient procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, even with restrictions on administrative agencies declaring statutes unconst
• Saboff v. ST. John's River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  200 F.3d 1356· 11th Cir.· 2000-01-18 ·cited 7×
  The Saboffs sued the St. John's River Water Management District in state court for inverse condemnation and state constitutional violations, which were dismissed. After the state appeal was denied, they filed federal claims in district court based on the same facts. The Eleventh
• Pontarelli Limousine v. City OF Chicago
  929 F.2d 339· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the City's differential treatment of livery companies regarding airport dispatch booths did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the plaintiffs did not belong to a vulnerable group or allege infringement of a fundamental right, and the City's action
• Nottingham P'rs v. Trans-Lux Corp.
  925 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 7×
  A state court-approved settlement, including a release, can bar exclusively federal claims if those claims arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the state law claims, even if the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal claims.
• McWILLIAMS v. McWILLIAMS
  804 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 7×
  A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as a court of that state would, barring a § 1983 claim based on issues that were or could have been litigated in the state proceeding.
• Landry v. Carlson Mooring Serv. & Houston Gen. Ins. Co.
  643 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Texas law does not contain the 'unmistakable language' required to preclude a subsequent recovery under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) after a state workers' compensation award, and therefore, the doctrines of full faith and cr
• Se. Res. Recovery Facility Auth. v. Montenay Int'l Corp.
  973 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-18 ·cited 6×
  A state court order compelling arbitration, even if framed as a denial of an injunction, is entitled to full faith and credit in federal court and precludes relitigation of the same issues.
• McADOO v. The Dallas Corp.
  932 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Ohio law does not require mutuality of parties for defensive collateral estoppel, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of causation in a prior proceeding.
• David Bruce Gilbert, M.D. v. Ben-Asher
  900 F.2d 1407· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior state court adjudications and stipulations.
• In re Lockard v. Lockard
  884 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's unsigned minute entry order was not sufficiently final or appealable to have preclusive effect, and that the contractor's license bond was not property of the bankruptcy estate, thus the automatic stay did not apply to the action against the
• Perry v. Kunz
  878 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case is not limited to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and may present direct evidence of discrimination, which, if believed, can suffice to prove the case.
• Caldeira v. Cnty. OF Kauai
  866 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts must give preclusive effect to state court judgments confirming arbitration awards, and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a conspiracy.
• Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. OF Regents
  859 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 6×
  A conspiracy to intimidate witnesses in a federal action does not cause cognizable injury under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) if the federal action is dismissed on purely legal grounds before trial, thus not affecting the claimant's ability to present their case.