Opinion ID: 772978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appropriate Collateral Estoppel Standard

Text: 29 Under the federal full faith and credit statute, federal courts must give state court judgments the preclusive effect that those judgments would enjoy under the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered. See 28 U.S.C. 1738. As a result, the district court should have applied Florida law in determining whether to give preclusive effect to the Florida judgment. See Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 84 L. Ed. 2d 274, 105 S. Ct. 1327 (1985) (Section 1738 embodies concerns of comity and federalism that allow the States to determine, subject to the requirements of the statute and the Due Process Clause, the preclusive effect of judgments in their own courts.); In re Nourbakhsh, 67 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying Florida collateral estoppel doctrine to a default judgment rendered in Florida state court). 30 Collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment, is a judicial doctrine which in general terms prevents identical parties from relitigating issues that have previously been decided between them. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla. 1977). Under Florida law, courts apply collateral estoppel when: (1) the parties are identical; 1 (2) the issues are identical; and (3) the issue was fully litigated and determined in a contest which results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Id.; see Porter v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1212, 1214-15 (Fla. 1996) (describing the collateral estoppel test as comprising five substantially similar elements). 31