Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.... 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (LexisNexis 2002). 6 . Given our disposition and the posture of the case, we need not determine whether the Howeth parties’ reservation of section-1983 claims against the individual defendants, based on the individuals’ participation in an alleged regulatory taking, was effective. See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of S.F., Cal, 545 U.S. 323, 346, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2506, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Halloo Tex., Inc. v. McMullen County, 221 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction (B) holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment (C) holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims (D) holding that the domesticrelations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not prevent federal courts from adjudicating a tort action when the plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the state custody decree because the tort issues  were not entangled with issues that only state courts are competent to resolve (E) holding that reservation of federal asapplied takings claims that have issues that are not distinct from antecedent state issues does not defeat application of collateral estoppel in later federal suit
Output (English): holding that the domesticrelations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not prevent federal courts from adjudicating a tort action when the plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the state custody decree because the tort issues  were not entangled with issues that only state courts are competent to resolve