Document: 465 U.S. 75 104 S.Ct. 892 79 L.Ed.2d 56 Ethel D. MIGRA, Petitioner,v.WARREN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. No. 82-738. Argued Oct. 11, 1983. Decided Jan. 23, 1984. Syllabus Petitioner was employed by respondent Warren, Ohio, Board of Education (Board) as a supervisor elementary education on an annual basis under written contracts. The Board, at regularly scheduled meeting, adopted resolution renewing petitioner's employment for the 1979-1980 school year, and, upon being advised this, petitioner accepted appointment letter. But shortly thereafter, special meeting which four its five members were present, voted 3 to 1 not renew employment, and so notified her in writing. then brought suit Ohio Court Common Pleas against three who had employment. complaint alleged two causes action—a breach contract wrongful interference individual with contract. trial court held that acceptance proffered created binding Board's subsequent action purporting no legal effect, awarded reinstatement compensatory damages. granted motion dismiss without prejudice "the issue conspiracy board members' liability," previously "reserved continued." Appeals affirmed, review denied Supreme Court. Thereafter, filed Federal District 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V), inter alia, members, Superintendent Schools, alleging because activities involving desegregation plan Warren schools social studies curriculum she prepared, determined contract, actions violated rights First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments. She requested injunctive relief punitive summary judgment defendants res judicata, dismissed complaint. United States affirmed. Held: With respect claim, litigated state court, state-court has same claim preclusive effect federal would have courts. Pp. 80-87. (a) In absence law modifying operation 28 1738—which provides judicial proceedings shall full faith credit every within they courts State from are taken—the is law. Having rejected Allen v. McCurry, 449 90, 101 411, 66 308, view judgments suits, this must also reject prevents creating bar case. Section 1738 embodies it more important give than ensure separate forums claims. does override preclusion guarantee right proceed claims turn adjudication 80-85. (b) case remanded further proceedings. It appears experienced gradual evolution recently applied concepts broadly past, but Court's opinion indicate whether what thought preclusion. Court, should, first instance, interpret apply it. 85-87. 703 F.2d 564 (CA 6 1982), vacated remanded. John R. Vintilla, Cleveland, petitioner. James L. Messenger, Youngstown, respondents. Justice BLACKMUN delivered This raises issues concerning effect1 context suit, §§ 1985 court. 2 * Petitioner, Dr. Migra, [Ohio] City School August 1976 June 1979. served education. Her contracts successive years. On April 17, 1979, all unanimously Migra's year. Being renewed letter dated 18 member 23. Early following morning passed Schools President. 4 however, called President, 24. Although there appear been some irregularities about call, see Brief Respondents 19, n. *, present. President read Then, after disposing other business, made adopted, vote one, Migra given notice nonrenewal never received absent member, Culver, learned termination he returned Florida 25 where attended National Boards Convention. 5 Trumbull County, complaint, although counts, presented parties now accept essentially action, namely, bench trial, continued" "issue conspiracy" did reach question liability. App. 39. ruled 1979-1980, between relationship effect. Id., 41-52. position 52. moved liability." 53. That granted. 54. Appeals, Eleventh District, unreported opinion, affirmed Pleas. Review Ohio.2 July 1980, present Northern Schools. 3. become director commission appointed fashion voluntary District's schools; prepared curriculum; objected opposed resisted plan; hostility ill will toward developed; that, consequence, 5-6. Many facts proved earlier litigation. claimed intended punish exercise First Amendment rights. deprived property due process equal protection. thus arose Fifth Amendments 1985. 11-12. Answers course thereafter judicata statute limitations. 13-24. 7 Pet. Cert. C17-C31, D32. Sixth Circuit, short order, A-15. See 1982).3 Because importance issue, differences among Courts 6, infra, we certiorari. 459 ----, 103 722, 74 948 (1983). II 8 Constitution's Full Faith Credit Clause4 implemented Statute, 1738. reads pertinent part: 9 "Such Acts, records or copies thereof, authenticated, Territories Possessions usage such State, Territory Possession taken." settled be rendered. 308 (1980), said: 10 "Indeed, though may look common policies supporting collateral estoppel assessing decisions courts, Congress specifically required whenever emerged do so. . ." 96, S.Ct., 415. 11 principle restated Kremer Chemical Construction Corp., 456 461, 102 1883, 72 262 (1982): 12 "Section requires those emerged." 466, 1889. 13 Haring Prosise, --- 2368, 76 595 Accordingly, 1738, 14 Allen, considered modified receive less normal case, convicted criminal proceeding. proceeding, sought suppress certain evidence him ground obtained violation Fourth Amendment. suppress. officers seized evidence. barred (issue preclusion) resolved denial his suppression trial. reversed. concluded respondent's only route forum constitutional claim,5 one 1983's underlying purposes provide cause situations adequately protecting rights, should allowed unencumbered estoppel. reversed explaining: 15 "[N]othing language remotely expresses any congressional intent contravene common-law rules repeal express statutory requirements predecessor creates new action. says nothing judgments. 16 Moreover, legislative history clear way suggest restrict traditional doctrines [T]he whole lends most equivocal support argument cases recognized asserted provided fair procedures determining them, judicata. Since repeals implication disfavored much clearer hold applicable suits." U.S., 97-99, 416-417. 17 therefore actually proceeding entitled enjoy left open possibility, might different litigant could raised raise proceeding.6 97, 10, 416, 10. central litigate asserts preclude simply Thus, urges interplay accord suits 19 difficult how policy concerns justify distinction effects based Congress' expressed concern over adequacy protectors See, e.g., Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 241-242, 92 2151, 2160-2161, 32 705 (1972). enactment motivated partially out concern, 98-99, 416-417, nevertheless relitigation Any distrust limitation presumably equally decided well been. If exception general accorded judgments, seem require similar treatment both 20 suggests enable litigants bring their thereby taking advantage relative expertise forums. division attractive plaintiff's perspective, system established reflects variety concerns, including notions comity, need prevent vexatious litigation, desire conserve resources. 21 adjudicated them original Alternatively, litigating court.7 1983, We hold, therefore, litigation III 22 us evolution, past. For example, Vasu Kohlers, Inc., 145 St. 321, 61 N.E.2d 707 (1945), plaintiff suffered personal injury damages automobile accident maintain defendant each type injury. theory "[i]njuries person result act infringements rise distinct N.E.2d, 709 (syllabus ¶ 4).8 Rush Maple Heights, 167 221, 147 599 (1958), overruled "[p]aragraph syllabus [Vasu ] case." 235, 599, 607. approach declared "modern practice," id., 607, hope reduce "much attendant confusion, resulted recent years filing petitions plaintiff, injuries damage, sustained simultaneously." 234-235, 23 holding, course, fully solve constitutes "cause action" purposes. definition "claim" critical seems basic rule possesses. Norwood McDonald, 142 299, 52 67 (1943); Whitehead General Tel. Co., St.2d 108, 254 (1969). 24 1968, twice dealt Henderson Ryan, 31, 233 506; Sharp Shelby Mut. Ins. 134, 239 49. these cases, second permitted, clearly developing broader expansive attitude Henderson, St.2d, 35, 38, 509-511; Sharp, 140, addition, 1970 Rule Rules Civil Procedure establishing compulsory counterclaim provision like counterpart Procedure. 1982, broad doctrine indeed, defensive, offensive, context. Johnson's Island, Inc. Township Trustees, 69 241, 431 672. recites: 26 "When prior injunction enjoin landowner's zoning law, affirmative defense non-conforming use, assert unconstitutionality landowner is, later bringing declaratory unconstitutional." Ibid., 673. 27 Stromberg Ed. Bratenahl, 64 98, 413 1184 (1980). reading unable determine applying cites Circuit purported enunciate Coogan Cincinnati Bar Assn, 1209 (1970), relied precedents Our holding today makes Prudence dictates 29 accordingly, instruct conduct by, consistent with, opinion. 30 ordered. WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE POWELL join, concurring. 31 Union & Planters' Bank Memphis, 189 71, 75, 604, 606, 47 L.Ed. 712 (1903), "can [a judgment] greater efficacy" judgment-rendering state. adhered least occasions since time. Oklahoma Packing Co. Gas Electric 309 4, 7-8, 60 215, 216-217, 84 537 (1940); Wright Georgia R.R. Banking 216 420, 429, 242, 245, 54 544 (1910); Covington Bank, 198 100, 107-109, 562, 563-565, 49 963 (1905). indicated states bound clause. Public Works Columbia College, Wall. 521, 529, 687 (1873). justified even if standards. construction predecessors unfortunate. terms purpose section, reason developed circumstances free relitigate contrary long standing, seen fit disturb it, however 33 I join former discussed varying times, seemingly conflicting terminology, attributable These referred collectively commentators "res judicata." Restatement (Second) Judgments, Introductory Note before ch. (1982); C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Practice 4402 (1981). Res often analyzed consist concepts: preclusion" "claim preclusion." Issue refers foreclosing matter decided. Restatement, supra, 27. direct Claim litigated, determination advanced suit. encompasses merger bar. occasion used term judicata" narrow sense, exclude 94, 414, (1980); Brown Felsen, 442 127, 99 2205, 767 (1979). When using formulation, becomes virtually synonymous order avoid confusion resulting uses judicata," utilizes refer matters helpful explanation vocabulary, al., 4402. apparent, foregoing recital events took place conclusion sounding tort, not. Instead, continued," evidently sua sponte, eventually motion. dismissal entry tell favorable gave back pay year reduced amount unemployment compensation period. 1-2; Tr. Oral Arg. "Full public Records, Proceedings State. And Laws prescribe Manner Records proved, Effect thereof." Const., Art. IV, 1. "full opportunity" search seizure claim; Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 1067 (1976), seeking writ habeas corpus district Most faced Isaac Schwartz, 706 (CA1 1983); Nilsen Moss Point, 701 556 (CA5 Castorr Brundage, 674 531 (CA6), cert. denied, 240, Lee Peoria, 685 196 (CA7 1982); Robbins Worth Iowa, 592 1015 (CA8), 444 852, 100 107, 62 (1979); Scoggin Schrunk, 522 436 (CA9 1975), 423 1066, 807, 46 657 (1976); Spence Latting, 512 93 (CA10), 896, 198, 129 (1975). Some otherwise. Lombard New York, 502 631 (CA2 1974), 420 976, 95 1400, 43 656 (1975); Jersey Assn. Burke, 579 764 (CA3), 439 894, 252, 58 (1978). comment federal-state comity considerations, Currie, Judicata: Neglected Defense, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 317 author dissent Allen. rationale dissent, largely fact posture 115-116, 425-426. offensive proceeded wanted forum. event sufficiently intertwined abstains passing allowing address issues, can preserve informing intention return England Louisiana Medical Examiners, 375 440 (1964). Except per curiam opinions, speaks through syllabi cases. Cassidy Glossip, 18, 24, 231 64, 65, 68 (1967). Gallagher, 425 257, 259, 1438, 1439, 722 Beck 379 89, 93, 2, 85 223, 226, 142; Perkins Benguet Mining 342 437, 441, 3, 413, 485.

Category: 1