28 U.S.C. § 1738

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

• Salazar v. United States AIR Force and Paul Thomas Byrne
  849 F.2d 1542· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The federal district court erred in giving full faith and credit to a Texas state court garnishment judgment against the United States, as the state court lacked jurisdiction to garnish funds for a tort recovery mischaracterized as child support.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• Pochiro v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  827 F.2d 1246· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Pochiros' claims were compulsory counterclaims to Prudential's prior action and were thus barred by res judicata, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend.
• Morene Carter v. City OF Emporia
  815 F.2d 617· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior state court judgment, under the doctrine of claim preclusion, barred the plaintiffs' federal civil rights and wrongful death claims because the administrator of the estate was in privity with the heirs.
• Gargiul v. Tompkins
  790 F.2d 265· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissent argues that New York res judicata law does not preclude the plaintiff's section 1983 claim, and that the majority erred in considering the good-faith immunity defense.
• Hill v. The Coca Cola Bottling Co. OF NEW York & John Hurley
  786 F.2d 550· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 6×
  A prior state unemployment insurance determination that an employee was terminated for misconduct does not collaterally estop the employee from pursuing a federal discrimination claim if the discrimination issue was not fully litigated in the prior proceeding.
• City OF Canton v. Maynard
  766 F.2d 236· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because the claims were barred by res judicata, as the issues could have been raised in prior state court litigation.
• Baker v. Detective Colin McCOY
  739 F.2d 381· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied collateral estoppel to preclude litigation of pre-confession beatings and did not err in directing a verdict for the Board of Police Commissioners due to lack of evidence of a pattern of misconduct.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. United Fin. Grp., Inc.
  576 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 6×
  A prior judgment determining that leave to sue a receiver was not required, even if erroneous, is res judicata and entitled to full faith and credit, and the limiting language in that judgment dictates the source of payment.
• The IVY Club v. Edwards
  943 F.2d 270· 3d Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ivy waived its right to reserve federal claims under England by unreservedly litigating them in state proceedings before attempting any reservation, and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests the district court of jurisdiction over claims seeking review of s
• Mansfield Jones v. Poindexter
  903 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot due to the state court's final judgment, and his claims for damages under federal law failed because the defendant's actions did not constitute state action.
• LOS Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. LOS Angeles Branch NAACP
  714 F.2d 935· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the NAACP's claim of de jure segregation in Los Angeles schools is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior adjudication in the Crawford litigation.
• In re Zoernack
  289 B.R. 220· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-24 ·cited 4×
  A federal court cannot review a state court's judgment granting a charging lien, even if by consent, due to the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and Rooker-Feldman.
• Gross v. Barnett Banks, Inc.
  934 F. Supp. 1340· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining state court proceedings that sought to relitigate claims already resolved by a federal class action settlement, and that the movant was not entitled to relief from the judgment due to inadequate notice.
• Carol v. Roth
  993 F.2d 1058· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-24 ·cited 4×
  Unreviewed findings of a state unemployment compensation board do not have collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent Title VII action.
• Leon v. Murphy
  988 F.2d 303· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his conspiracy claims lacked sufficient factual support to withstand summary judgment.
• Kane v. P.K. Hargis
  987 F.2d 1005· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim, finding the officer's conduct potentially violated clearly established law, and correctly granted summary judgment on the denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution c
• Pirela v. Vill. OF N. Aurora
  935 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims regarding discriminatory termination and suspension were barred by res judicata, but claims regarding discriminatory denial of promotions and wages were not.
• Temple OF THE Lost Sheep Inc. v. Abrams
  930 F.2d 178· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 4×
  A federal plaintiff cannot avoid preclusion by reserving federal claims in state court after Younger abstention; collateral estoppel applies to issues decided in state court if there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
• Bernardsville Quarry v. Borough of Bernardsville
  929 F.2d 927· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the federal complaint because the plaintiff was precluded from relitigating claims already decided in state court under New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine.
• Charles Koen & Assocs. v. City OF Cairo & Allen Moss
  909 F.2d 992· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect as they have in the state's own courts, barring claims that were or could have been litigated.
• Webb v. State OF Ala.
  850 F.2d 1518· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's section 1983 claims were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because the state court proceedings, limited by common law certiorari, did not actually litigate or provide an opportunity to litigate the due process issues.
• In re Pahule
  849 F.2d 1056· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 4×
  A debt arising from a judgment for damages caused by drunk driving is not dischargeable in bankruptcy, even if the state court judgment did not explicitly state the debtor was drunk.
• MGA, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp. & LaSalle Mach. Tool, Inc.
  827 F.2d 729· Fed. Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prior state court judgment, determining that accused machines were outside the scope of a patent license, has preclusive effect in a subsequent federal patent infringement suit against a customer of the seller, under the Kessler doctrine.
• Barrett v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  840 F.2d 1259· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient new evidence or exceptional circumstances to warrant equitable relief from a prior judgment denying disability benefits.
• Prince Lewis, Jr. v. E. Feliciana Parish Sch. Bd.
  820 F.2d 143· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was barred by res judicata, as it had been litigated and decided by Louisiana state courts.
• Ottley v. Sheepshead Nursing Home
  784 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying collateral estoppel because there were insufficient factual distinctions between the two receiverships to establish identical issues. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
• Brister v. The Parish OF Jefferson
  747 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal court must give the state court judgment the same preclusive effect as Louisiana courts would, barring relitigation of the same issues.
• Robert Vance, D.O. v. State OF Utah
  744 F.2d 750· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Utah's preclusion law barred relitigation of issues already decided by state courts, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Duncan v. Clements
  744 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 4×
  Collateral estoppel does not apply because the defendant officer was not a party or in privity with a party to the prior state criminal proceeding, and the jury instruction on good faith for false arrest, while technically incorrect under Missouri law, was harmless error.
• In re Allman v. Allman
  735 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that agreed state court judgments, which did not contain specific factual findings of fraud or false pretenses, were insufficient to collaterally estop a bankruptcy court from determining the dischargeability of a debt.
• Brown v. Green
  738 F.2d 202· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding the state court criminal record as prima facie evidence that the plaintiff struck the officer, as this evidence was relevant to the officer's defense.
• Sanders v. Frisby
  736 F.2d 1230· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of Fourth Amendment claims in a § 1983 action when those claims were actually litigated and decided in state criminal proceedings, even if the conviction was later reversed on other grounds.
• In re Besing v. Lyn Noble Hawthorne
  981 F.2d 1488· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the extinguishment of claims by a state court judgment does not constitute a 'transfer' of property under § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• Conte v. Justice
  996 F.2d 1398· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred Kenneth Conte's action due to adequate representation by his insurer, but not Laura Conte's action, as her participation as a guardian did not establish privity or control over her subsequent individual claim.
• Cadorette v. United States
  988 F.2d 215· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the condemnation action moots the remaining quiet title claims regarding Betsey I and Edmund II's shares, and the district court's allocation of those shares was incorrect.
• Osborn v. Ashland Cnty. Bd. OF Alcohol
  979 F.2d 1131· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that res judicata barred Osborn's federal due process claim because it had been fully litigated and decided in state court.
• Lolling v. Patterson
  966 F.2d 230· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Deputy Lolling's due process claims were barred because his suspension was a random and unauthorized act for which the state provided adequate post-deprivation remedies, and his retaliation claim was barred by res judicata as he had a full and fair opportunity
• SMA Life Assurance Co. v. Sanchez-Pica
  960 F.2d 274· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief to prevent a local administrative agency from proceeding, despite a prior federal default judgment.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• In re Vern O. Laing v. Vern O. Laing
  945 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court erred in denying preclusive effect to the state court judgment based on fraud, as the alleged fraud was not extrinsic to the issues litigated in the state court.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc.
  930 F.2d 316· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board is not required to give preclusive effect to an arbitrator's finding of fact when the arbitrator was not presented with evidence essential to the Board's resolution of an unfair labor practice charge.
• Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Linthicum
  930 F.2d 14· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that ERISA preempts state subrogation law for self-funded plans and that the insurer was not barred by res judicata from litigating its claim in federal court.
• Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch
  918 F.2d 658· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must apply the claim preclusion law of the state where the prior judgment was rendered, and if that state's law would not give preclusive effect to a judgment from a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction, then the federal court should not give it preclusive ef
• Evans v. Dale
  896 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal securities claims are not barred by res judicata and should not be dismissed under Burford abstention, but state law claims are barred by res judicata.
• Schmit v. United States
  896 F.2d 352· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's tax lien did not attach to the plaintiff's home because it was always her separate property under state law, despite joint title.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Anne Arundel Cmty. Coll.
  867 F.2d 800· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the prior judgments did not actually litigate the intent of the parties regarding the insurance policy exclusion. The court further held that under Maryland law, the insurance policy exclusion for "contractual obligati
• Sider v. Valley Line
  857 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court judgment is final and appealable even if unserved defendants remain, and that the state court judgment was res judicata barring the federal LHWCA claim.
• Bray v. NEW York Life Ins.
  851 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A state court dismissal of a petition for review on statute of limitations grounds, which New York law treats as a dismissal on the merits, has preclusive effect in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, barring subsequent federal claims.
• Jarrett v. Gramling
  841 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court judgment in a mandamus action bars a subsequent federal § 1983 action if both arise from the same transaction or occurrence, under Oklahoma law and the Full Faith and Credit Act.