28 U.S.C. § 1738

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

• Doerinkel v. Hillsborough TWP. & Hillsborough Twp. Bd. of Adjustment
  835 F.2d 1052· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying issue preclusion against the Township, as the validity of the zoning ordinance was not properly litigated in the prior state court action. The dismissal against the Board of Adjustment was affirmed.
• Jeno F. Paulucci and Lois Paulucci v. City OF Duluth & Lake Superior Paper Indus.
  826 F.2d 780· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for voluntary dismissal, nor did it err in granting summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Pasterczyk v. Fair
  819 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief, which granted sentence credit, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal § 1983 damages action for the same underlying grievance, as the damages claim could have been raised in the state action.
• Marita Rogers v. Platt
  814 F.2d 683· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 2×
  The District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and should have dismissed the action.
• Robart Wood & Wire Prods. Corp. v. Namaco Indus., Inc.
  797 F.2d 176· 4th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts must give full faith and credit to state court judgments that are regular on their face and properly authenticated, even if there are allegations of procedural defects in the rendering state's courts.
• Kindle v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
  792 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 2×
  Parents of a deceased worker are entitled to a lump-sum death benefit payment under Louisiana law if the worker is not survived by any legal dependents as defined by Louisiana statute, regardless of whether another state awarded benefits to someone else based on different criteri
• Stall v. Bourne
  774 F.2d 657· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not precluded from litigating his First Amendment claims in federal court because he did not receive a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues in state administrative and judicial proceedings, particularly since he was the prevaili
• The Superior OIL Co. v. The City OF Port Arthur
  726 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court judgment in a quo warranto action, which determined the validity of a municipal annexation, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal court challenge by a taxpayer on the same constitutional grounds.
• Hirrill v. Merriweather
  629 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination claim was barred by res judicata, and while the pension claim's res judicata status was unclear, it was ultimately without merit and thus properly dismissed.
• The Ala. Creditors v. Dorand
  95 F.4th 1355· 11th Cir.· 2024-03-14 ·cited 1×
  An individual retirement account is part of a debtor's bankruptcy estate if the funds remain in the account when the bankruptcy petition is filed, even if a state court issued a turnover order, as long as the funds were not actually transferred before filing.
• In re Demeo
  377 B.R. 731· S.D. Fla.· 2007-10-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that collateral estoppel applies to a New York default judgment for conversion, making the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
• Merrill Lynch v. Salvano
  999 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a district court has the authority to grant a temporary restraining order in an arbitrable dispute to preserve the status quo, but this authority does not extend indefinitely once arbitration has commenced.
• Treister v. City of Miami
  893 F. Supp. 1057· S.D. Fla.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that most of the plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims are barred by res judicata and the full faith and credit statute due to prior state court rulings.
• Welsh v. Martinez
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-31
  The court held that certain foreign orders are enforceable in Florida under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Florida's Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, as they are considered final decisions under Connecticut law.
• Doe v. Fla. Gulf Coast Univ. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-08
  The court held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars the § 1983 and breach of contract claims, and the Title IX claim fails for lack of plausible allegations of gender bias.
• The Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motorcycle Assocs., Inc.
  658 So. 2d 146· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-07-12
  The court held that Florida should not grant greater execution rights on a recorded foreign judgment than are available in the rendering state, consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
• Medvick v. City OF Univ. City
  995 F.2d 857· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that a prior state court judgment on constitutional claims bars a subsequent federal § 1983 action based on the same claims due to res judicata.
• Crocog Co. v. Reeves
  992 F.2d 267· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal action was barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) because the plaintiff could have and should have raised its federal constitutional claims in the prior state court proceeding reviewing the administrative assessment.
• Smith v. Tassic
  990 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that a state court's prior ruling on ERISA preemption, which was fully litigated and decided on its merits, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal collateral attack on jurisdiction.
• Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass'n v. City OF SAN Marcos
  989 F.2d 362· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action based on res judicata, as the claims were or could have been litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Joseph Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Olympic Fire Corp.
  986 F.2d 416· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-23
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing amendment of the pretrial order to permit a res judicata defense, as it would result in manifest injustice to the plaintiffs.
• Katt v. Dykhouse
  983 F.2d 690· 6th Cir.· 1992-11-23
  The court held that res judicata does not bar the action and the first prong of the Central Hudson test is met because the underlying activity is lawful and the offer is speech.
• Butler v. The City OF N. Little Rock
  980 F.2d 501· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-20
  The court held that the state court judgment had preclusive effect, barring relitigation of the race discrimination claims in federal court, and that the denial of leave to amend the complaint was not an abuse of discretion.
• Munz v. Parr
  972 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-14
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred the claim regarding the search's constitutionality, the identification of the officer for the excessive force claim was implausible, and there were insufficient facts for a conspiracy claim.
• Kyricopoulos v. Town OF Orleans
  967 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-18
  The court held that the appellant was precluded by his state court conviction from relitigating the issue of probable cause in his federal civil rights action.
• Antonsen v. Ward
  943 F.2d 198· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-21
  A prior state court judgment in an Article 78 proceeding bars a subsequent federal claim for attorney's fees if the state court had the power to award them, and bars a claim for compensatory damages if they are not incidental to the primary relief sought in the state proceeding.
• Bone v. City OF Lafayette
  919 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-28
  The court held that the statement that the plaintiff lied was substantially true because a prior state court judgment established that her application for a building permit contained a false certification regarding compliance with local ordinances. Therefore, the defamation claim
• Davis v. Vieques AIR Link
  892 F.2d 1122· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-05
  The court held that a prior local court ruling denying a motion to dismiss was not a final judgment and thus not res judicata, and that the third-party complaint was time-barred under Puerto Rico's ten-year statute of limitations for construction defects.
• Gates Learjet Corp. v. Duncan Aviation
  851 F.2d 303· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-30
  The court held that Gates is equitably estopped under Michigan law from litigating Duncan's alleged negligence because Gates failed to present its claims or defenses in the prior Michigan action.
• Snell v. Mayor & City Council OF Havre de Grace
  837 F.2d 173· 4th Cir.· 1988-01-25
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants because Snell's claims were barred by res judicata under Maryland law.
• Fed. Ins. Co. v. Gates Learjet Corp.
  823 F.2d 383· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-30
  The court held that the district court erred in applying offensive collateral estoppel without considering the law of the state rendering the prior judgment, and that the statute of limitations defense was properly denied due to undue delay.
• Heinold HOG Mkt., Inc. v. McCOY
  817 F.2d 81· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-24
  The court affirmed the deputy commissioner's finding that a 1984 industrial accident merged with an earlier 1980 injury and awarded temporary total disability benefits, but reversed the order granting the employer a partial credit for wage continuation payments.
• United States v. Warford
  791 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-24
  The court held that while the Assistant United States Attorney's waiver of the government's redemption right was ineffectual, the government should be required to litigate the issue in Florida courts due to its choice of forum.
• First Tenn. Bank N.A. Memphis v. Smith
  766 F.2d 255· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-01
  The court held that when two states issue conflicting judgments, the second judgment in time is entitled to full faith and credit, even if it conflicts with the first, provided the second court had jurisdiction.
• Atchison v. State OF Wyo.
  763 F.2d 388· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against individual defendants were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata, and the claim against the State was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Rouse Constr., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  750 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21
  A surety is not bound by a default judgment against its principal in another state if the surety was not a party or privy to that action, even if the other state's law would bind the surety.
• Jacinto Vasquez v. van Lindt
  724 F.2d 321· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-20
  The court held that Vasquez's claims were barred by res judicata because they were actually litigated and determined in the state court Article 78 proceeding, precluding relitigation in federal court under § 1983.