- 25 -
jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent
suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to
the prior litigation.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147,
153 (1979).
In cases raising an issue concerning the preclusive effect
of prior State court litigation on subsequent Federal litigation,
the application of preclusion doctrines such as res judicata
(sometimes referred to as claim preclusion) and collateral
estoppel (sometimes referred to as issue preclusion) is required
by the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1738 (1994),
which provides, in pertinent part, that “judicial proceedings of
any court of any such State * * *. * * * shall have the same
full faith and credit in every court within the United States and
its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in
the courts of such State”. See Migra v. Warren City School Dist.
Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984); see also Allen v. McCurry,
449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980) (“Congress has specifically required all
Federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments
whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged
would do so”).
In this case, the State litigation occurred in Nebraska. We
must apply Nebraska law in determining whether the State
litigation must be given preclusive effect in this case. See
Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., supra at 81.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011