DEFENSE · 42usc1983:x-collateral-estoppel
Under Allen v. McCurry (449 U.S. 90 (1980)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts hearing § 1983 actions give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have in the courts of that State, provided there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue.
Exact element source
in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redressSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [441:516] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| issue-preclusion/no-contest-plea-does-not-bar-excessive-force-claim | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 | Issue preclusion / collateral estoppel from prior state criminal or civil judgment (Allen v. McCurry) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law Not preclusive, yet the same plea and stipulations are then used as admissions to defeat the claim on the merits. | issue-preclusion/no-contest-plea-does-not-bar-excessive-force-claim | Mr. Dye, represented through his attorney James Tekavec, withdrew his prior not guilty pleas and entered a plea of no contest with consent to a finding of guilty on the disorderly conduct charge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [10041:10236] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.During the pretrial hearing Mr. Dye also stipulated to probable cause for the charges of resisting arrest and reckless operation of a vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [10373:10515] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.The Supreme Court has held that issues decided in a state court criminal proceeding may have a collateral estoppel effect in a section 1983 civil rights action, but only to the extent that the plaintiff sought relitigation of the same issues which were previously decided in the criminal proceeding.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [19925:20224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Consequently, in this case, the issue of whether Chief Mandopoulos used excessive force in arresting Mr. Dye was neither actually litigated nor necessary to a determination on the charge of disorderly conduct in state court.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [22826:23050] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The Supreme Court has held that issues decided in a state court criminal proceeding may have a collateral estoppel effect in a section 1983 civil rights action, but only to the extent that the plaintiff sought relitigation of the same issues which were previously decided in the criminal proceeding.
/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005
The Supreme Court has held that issues decided in a state court criminal proceeding may have a collateral estoppel effect in a section 1983 civil rights action, but only to the extent that the plaintiff sought relitigation of the same issues which were previously decided in the criminal proceeding.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [19925:20224] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Under Allen v. McCurry (449 U.S. 90 (1980)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts hearing § 1983 actions give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have in the courts of that State, provided there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue.