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

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

• 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.
• United States v. Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO & Env't Quality Bd.
  721 F.2d 832· 1st Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Clean Water Act's provision requiring federal facilities to comply with state water pollution standards does not implicitly repeal the general statute granting federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States.
• Pliska v. City OF Stevens Point
  823 F.2d 1168· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied res judicata to bar constitutional challenges to the ordinances, and that the jury's finding of reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop was supported by sufficient evidence.
• 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.
• DeVARGAS v. Montoya
  796 F.2d 1245· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• 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.
• 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.
• Painewebber Inc. v. Farnam
  870 F.2d 1286· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the state court's stay order was too vague to have preclusive effect under the law of the case doctrine, and that the arbitration claims were barred by the NASD Code's six-year eligibility rule.
• 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.
• 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.
• Rev. Vincent LaROCCA, esq. v. Gold
  662 F.2d 144· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff was barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating his First Amendment claim in federal court, as the issue had been fully and fairly litigated in state courts.
• 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.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. under Tr. No. 33832 v. City OF Chicago & Zoning Bd. of Appeals for the City of Chicago
  826 F.2d 1547· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 11×
  A dismissal for failure to comply with a statutory deadline for seeking judicial review of an administrative decision, even if characterized as jurisdictional, is considered a decision on the merits for preclusion purposes under Illinois law.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Bartel Dental Books Co., Inc. v. Schultz
  786 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Bartel's claims were frivolous due to a prior release, and Mapleton's claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion, affirming the grant of summary judgment and imposition of sanctions.
• 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.
• Prosise v. Haring
  667 F.2d 1133· 4th Cir.· 1981-12-30 ·cited 10×
  A guilty plea does not preclude a subsequent § 1983 claim for an illegal search and seizure if the issue was not actually litigated, as the defendant may lack sufficient incentive to litigate suppression issues in the state criminal proceeding.
• 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.
• The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. The Honorable James B. Parsons
  307 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1962-09-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court was bound by the state court's forum non conveniens ruling and should have transferred the case.
• 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.
• 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. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop.
  900 F.2d 470· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the claimants' guilty pleas could be admitted as admissions in the civil forfeiture case, but did not have collateral estoppel effect. However, the government's affidavits, viewed in the light most favorable to the claimants, established a substantial connecti
• 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.
• Estrada-Izquierdo v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
  850 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The district court erred in finding a politically inspired dismissal and in ordering reinstatement, as it failed to give full faith and credit to a Puerto Rico Superior Court judgment.
• Rider v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  850 F.2d 982· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied res judicata to dismiss the male guards' Title VII claim, as the state court's prior decision on the BFOQ issue was identical and afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
• 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.
• Bolling v. City & Cnty. OF Denver
  790 F.2d 67· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 were precluded by a prior state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata, and the Title VII claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• 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