Preclusive Effect Of State Court Judgments

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

• Donald v. Polk Cnty.
  836 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Donalds' claims were barred by collateral estoppel and that they failed to establish actual damages for procedural due process violations.
• Lettie D. Evans v. Syracuse City Sch. Dist.
  704 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting the defendant leave to amend its answer to assert res judicata nearly three years after the initial answer, on the eve of trial, and without compelling justification for the delay.
• 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.
• Lesher v. The Hon. Frank G. Lavrich
  784 F.2d 193· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional claims were barred by res judicata, and the Adoption Assistance Act claim did not provide a private right of action for retrospective relief.
• In re Jersey City Med. Ctr.
  817 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a Chapter 9 plan can permissibly classify unsecured claims into different classes, provided the classification is reasonable and not discriminatory, and that the debtor proposed the plan lawfully and in good faith.
• 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.
• Antone Gonsalves v. The Alpine Country Club
  727 F.2d 27· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the rationale of Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. applies even when a party was compelled to defend a state court appeal, barring subsequent federal Title VII actions due to res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Jehan Zeb MIR, M.D. v. Little Co. OF Mary Hosp.
  844 F.2d 646· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal antitrust claim was barred by the statute of limitations, state claims were barred by failure to obtain a writ of mandate, civil rights claims were barred by res judicata, and sanctions were appropriate.
• Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Torcise
  162 F.3d 1084· 11th Cir.· 1998-12-11 ·cited 9×
  Community Bank loaned Torcise $1.5 million secured by farm property; after Torcise defaulted and filed bankruptcy, Community Bank foreclosed in state court and obtained a judgment including prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's
• 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
• George v. United Ky. Bank, Inc.
  753 F.2d 50· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state court's judgment, which found no fraud by the bank, collaterally estopped the plaintiffs from pursuing a RICO claim based on fraud in the inducement, as the state court refused to allow amendment for that specific claim. The court also affirmed the dis
• 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.
• 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.
• Town OF Seabrook v. State OF NEW Hampshire
  738 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that res judicata bars relitigation of claims previously decided in state court, even if new legal theories or parties are added.
• Deckert v. Wachovia Student Fin. Servs., Inc.
  963 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 4×
  The court should have modified the dismissal to be without prejudice rather than affirming the flawed judgment.
• 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.
• O'Reilly v. Cnty. Bd. OF Appeals FOR Montgomery Cnty.
  900 F.2d 789· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court properly applied issue preclusion, barring the appellant from relitigating claims already rejected by the state court.
• Brookins v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  843 F.2d 879· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's dismissal with prejudice, after individualized consideration and a hearing on a motion for reinstatement, constituted an adjudication on the merits, thus barring the federal action under res judicata.
• Morris v. Cnty. OF Tehama
  795 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prosecutorial and judicial immunity barred claims against certain defendants, and state court judgments had preclusive effect, but reversed dismissal for Officer Carlton due to unresolved immunity issues.
• Rodriguez v. Schweiger
  796 F.2d 930· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's guilty plea in state court collaterally estops them from relitigating facts underlying the plea in a subsequent federal civil rights action, absent special circumstances like fraud or newly discovered evidence.
• Hoffman Constr. Co. OF Or. v. Active Erectors & Installers, Inc.
  969 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-08
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in holding that Active waived its right to arbitrate the RICO claim or was prohibited from splitting it off.
• Gareth West v. Ruff
  961 F.2d 1064· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that the inmate did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim in the state court proceeding, thus precluding the application of res judicata/collateral estoppel.
• Texaco Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Medina
  834 F.2d 242· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-04
  The court held that a prior Superior Court judgment barred the appellants' first counterclaim under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by judgment, and that their antitrust counterclaim was conclusory and without merit.
• COX v. Norton
  797 F.2d 329· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-31
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata because the issue of due process regarding the special assessment had been fully litigated in prior state and federal court actions.
• Earlie Leslie v. Bolen
  762 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-17
  The court held that a federal civil rights action is barred by collateral estoppel if the issue was actually litigated and essential to a prior state court judgment under state law.