Full Faith And Credit Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738)

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

• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Reimer v. Smith
  663 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for deprivation of property regarding the autocar and forklift, that the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the state agency, that dismissal of a supervisory defendant was proper, and that collateral estoppel barred
• 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.
• Henry v. Farmer City State Bank
  808 F.2d 1228· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the RICO claims were barred by res judicata because the plaintiffs failed to raise their fraud claims as defenses in the prior state court foreclosure proceedings. However, the court reversed the district court's injunction against state court proceedings, fin
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Narcisse Batiste v. Furnco Constr. Corp.
  503 F.2d 447· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the doctrines of election of remedies and res judicata do not bar a Title VII action in federal court after state administrative proceedings, but the district court erred by adopting the state commission's findings without independent inquiry.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Gjellum v. The City OF Birmingham
  829 F.2d 1056· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that federal common law of preclusion does not require application of state claim preclusion rules to unreviewed state administrative decisions in Section 1983 suits.
• 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
• Clark v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  785 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that res judicata barred claims arising from conduct prior to the state court judgment, but not claims arising from subsequent conduct.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Graybill v. United States Postal Serv.
  782 F.2d 1567· Fed. Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preclude an employee from relitigating his guilt after a criminal conviction, and that a sufficient nexus existed between the employee's misconduct and the efficiency o
• 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.
• 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.
• In re McMILLAN
  579 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 20×
  A default judgment from state court, grounded in fraud, does not have collateral estoppel effect in bankruptcy proceedings to establish nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(2) because the issues were not actually litigated.
• N. Natural GAS Co. v. Grounds
  931 F.2d 678· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's federal claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior Kansas Supreme Court decision, rendering the appeals moot.
• In re Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union # 107. Appeal of Ronald & Frances Gajkowski
  888 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was moot because a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision reversed the prior judgment, rendering the appellate court unable to grant effective relief.
• 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.
• James v. Gerber Prods. Co.
  587 F.2d 324· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the probate court's prior judgments were res judicata, barring the plaintiff's claims of securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The court also found that the jury's determination that the undisclosed information was not material was supported by the ev
• 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.
• 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.
• Edwards v. Ark. Power & Light Co.
  683 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court applies Pullman abstention, finding unsettled state law questions regarding res judicata and bad-faith claims may determine the federal due process claim.
• 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.