Document: 474 U.S. 518 106 S.Ct. 768 88 L.Ed.2d 877 PARSONS STEEL, INC., et al., Petitionersv.FIRST ALABAMA BANK and Edward Herbert. No. 84-1616. Argued Dec. 3, 1985. Decided Jan. 27, 1986. Syllabus Petitioners sued respondents in an Alabama state court, alleging that respondent bank had fraudulently induced petitioner individuals to permit a third person take control of subsidiary corporation eventually obtain complete ownership. Subsequently, the was adjudicated involuntary bankrupt. then Federal District Court, same conduct on bank's part subject suit violated Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) amendments. The federal action went trial before action, Court granted judgment n.o.v. for bank. Appeals affirmed. Thereafter, pleaded res judicata defense based judgment, but court denied defense. After complaint amended include Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) claim foreclosure sale subsidiary's assets commercially unreasonable, jury returned verdict damages petitioners' favor. Respondents filed injunctive against petitioners. fraud UCC claims should have been raised as pendent BHCA accordingly barred under judicata, enjoined petitioners from further prosecuting action. affirmed, holding parties were by raising after entry injunction proper "relitigation exception" Anti-Injunction Act, which generally prohibits enjoining proceedings excepts prohibition issuance "where necessary . protect or effectuate its judgments." did not consider possible preclusive effect law court's resolution issue, instead worked pro tanto amendment Full Faith Credit requires courts well give judicial "the full faith credit they usage such State are taken." Held: erred refusing state-court judgment. Even if mistakenly rejected respondents' claim, this would justify highly intrusive remedy federal-court enforcement Rather, particularly it another State. Pp. 523-526. 747 F.2d 1367, reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Frank M. Wilson, Montgomery, Ala., Roland Nachman, Jr., respondents. Justice REHNQUIST 1 28 U.S.C. § 1738, 2283, granting stay In present case Eleventh Circuit held quoted exception latter former, so might issue even though prevailing party litigated lost We certiorari question, 472 1026, 105 3497, 87 629 (1985), now reverse Appeals. 2 Parsons Steel, Inc., Jim Melba First Montgomery Herbert, officer, February 1979, essentially Parsonses Steel ownership subsidiary. bankrupt April trustee bankruptcy added plaintiff May 1979 United States Alabama, also amendments, 12 §§ 1971-1978. chose participate 3 conducted joint discovery actions. proceeded liability trial. A favor petitioners, That affirmed appeal. Inc. v. 679 242 (CA11 1982). entered, defenses collateral estoppel however, ruled bar Almost year unreasonable. general awarding total four million one dollars damages. 4 Having previously entered plaintiffs action.1 found factual allegations claimed substantially judicata. Determining nullified earlier bank, 5 divided panel relevant part, "an abuse discretion" 1381 (1980). majority first agreed with presented issues fact could claim. Thus their privies, including bankruptcy, these 6 so-called provides: 7 "A may grant except expressly authorized Congress, where aid jurisdiction, judgments" (emphasis added). 8 reaching holding, explicitly declined effect, pursuant 1738,2 determination litigation According majority, "while is bound other determinations, relitigation empowers be final adjudicator effects prior judgments subsequent action." F.2d, at 1376 (footnote omitted). 9 Finally, waived right waiting until completed. concluded pleadings vague clear cause involved danger being nullified. does limit power "to specific points time trials appellate procedure." Id., 1377.3 10 dissenting judge majority's conclusion implicitly 1738." (Hill, dissenting). He "section 2283 allows district enter injunction, perhaps grounded concept unless has already addressed merits," cases decided 1738 afford issue." Ibid. 11 our view, gave unwarrantedly short shrift important values federalism comity embodied Act. As recently last March, Marrese American Academy Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 373, 1327, 84 274 we reaffirmed Migra Warren City School Dist. Bd. Education, 465 75, 104 892, 79 56 (1984), must give. "It long established allow employ own rules determining judgments. goes beyond common commands accept chosen Kremer Chemical Construction Corp., 456 461, 481-482, 102 1883, 1898, 72 262 (1982). thus "allow[s] determine, requirements statute Due Process Clause, courts." Marrese, supra, 380, 1332. instant case, concluding limits do agree. "[A]n will recognized later contains express implied partial repeal." Kremer, 468, S.Ct., 1890; Allen McCurry, 449 90, 99, 101 411, 417, 66 308 Here, there no repeal; rather, repeal. " 'It is, course, cardinal principle statutory construction repeals implication favored,' Radzanower Touche Ross & Co., 426 148, 154 [96 1989, 1993, 48 540] (1976); Continental Tuna 425 164, 168 1319, 1323, 47 653] (1976), whenever possible, statutes read consistently." U.S., 1890. believe can construed consistently, simply limiting those situations yet merits issue. Once finally becomes applicable turn determine decision. 13 contrary apparently Congress 1948 overrule Court's decision Toucey New York Life Insurance 314 118, 62 139, 86 L.Ed. 100 (1941), understanding expressed Reed's opinion. See Revisor's Note Revision U.S.C., p. 377. But far cry Toucey, fully logic dissent without sanctions result reached here. each several sought soon opposing commenced any court. hand, fight out first, only losing return try. 14 felt discourage inefficient simultaneous issue—that costs dual system: 15 "In short, concurrent jurisdiction neither free prevent either simultaneously pursuing both Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Locomotive Engineers, 398 281, 295, 90 1739, 1747, 26 234 (1970). 16 Indeed, similar Line, various exceptions enjoin circumstances more threatening than case. There stated phrase interfering consideration disposition seriously impair flexibility authority decide case." 17 hold, therefore, law, Challenges correctness conclusive pursued way appeal through system Angel Bullington, 330 183, 67 657, 91 832 (1947). 18 think best situated apply preclusion instance. 386-387, 1335; 87, 899. Should conclude entitled position propriety principles equity, comity, discussed Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 243, 92 2151, 2162, 32 705 (1972). 19 reversed, remanded consistent opinion.4 20 It ordered. Although mention it, timely post-trial motion new provides, pertinent "shall every within whether allowed litigate his because facts formed basis alternative reversing Appeals, contend never intended involves litigated, actually ask us review Appeals' who nevertheless Because primary address additional arguments.

Category: 8