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

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

• 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.
• 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.
• Earl R. and Montez Midgett v. The United States
  603 F.2d 835· Ct. Cl.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records' denial of the parents' application was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence, as the evidence presented, including a Virginia decree of death and the soldier's military record, contradicted the finding of desertion.
• 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
• Barrington v. Fla. Dep't of Health
  112 F. Supp. 2d 1299· M.D. Fla.· 2000-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a plaintiff's Title VII claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the issues were fully litigated and decided in prior state administrative and appellate proceedings.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mary George Rives for her Minor Children v. The Franklin Life Ins. Co. & The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States
  792 F.2d 1324· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The district court order staying proceedings pending appointment of a successor trustee was an appealable collateral order and improperly constituted a collateral attack on a valid Mississippi chancery court decree.
• 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.
• Koziara v. City of Casselberry
  239 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2002-12-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' federal claims because the issues raised could have been litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• 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
• Kickapoo Tribe OF Oklahoma v. Rader
  822 F.2d 1493· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Antonio Anico's parental rights were terminated without adequate notice in violation of due process, but the state court's determination that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply was binding on federal courts due to res judicata.
• Hudson Drydocks Inc. v. Wyatt Yachts Inc.
  760 F.2d 1144· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant authorized the repairs that formed the basis of the Louisiana judgment, which is critical for establishing personal jurisdiction.
• United States ex rel. Duane Woodard v. Tynan
  757 F.2d 1085· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 5×
  The federal district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Attorney General's requests regarding state court records, nor in dismissing the action.
• Gov't Pers. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kaye
  584 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 5×
  Federal courts must give full faith and credit to state court judgments, and under Michigan law, a divorced spouse is not automatically a beneficiary without affirmative redesignation.
• 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.
• 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.
• Geilher Molina v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  981 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals and the INS Legalization Appeals Unit lawfully denied the petitioner's request for amnesty and ordered his deportation, finding his drug convictions valid under federal immigration law.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Town OF Deerfield v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  992 F.2d 420· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-27 ·cited 3×
  The FCC order preempting Deerfield's zoning ordinance is reversed because the FCC cannot disregard prior federal and state court judgments that already decided the preemption issue between the same parties.
• 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.
• Harris v. Great S. Life Ins.
  558 F. Supp. 689· M.D. Fla.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 3×
  A stakeholder is barred from seeking interpleader relief after a judgment on the merits has been rendered in favor of one of the claimants against the stakeholder.
• Tuma v. Dade Cnty. Pub. Schs.
  989 F. Supp. 1471· S.D. Fla.· 1998-01-06 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court decision affirming the dismissal of an employee for insubordination, which considered and rejected the employee's claim of religious discrimination, collaterally estops the employee from relitigating the discrimination claim in federal court under Title VII an
• 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.
• 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
• Joleewu, Ltd. v. City OF Austin
  916 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a city can be equitably estopped from asserting res judicata when it makes inconsistent representations to special condemnation commissioners, and that other state-law claims are barred by governmental immunity.