Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 127 (1988). The act is effective; it is a rare event when a federal court is asked to intervene to stop a state court proceeding. It is even more rare when the federal court accepts the invitation. As cautious as courts may be about reaching out to enjoin a state court from proceeding with litigation, there are circumstances that require such action. One such circumstance is the specter of parties relitigating in state court the same matters that have been decided by the federal court. See 17 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4226 (2d ed. 1988) (“The courts have clearly understood that the third exception [to the Anti-Injunction Act] does allow injunctions to prevent re-litigation.”). See also Midkiff v. Tom, 725 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect (B) holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give (C) holding that issuance of injunction was necessary to protect federal court judgment when hawaiian state courts refused to grant it preclusive effect (D) holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court (E) holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect
Output (English): holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court