Citation network
Allen Vs. Mccurry
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 09, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 90 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
U.S. 90 (1980) Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
to litigate his search and seizure claim, respondent was barred by Stone v. PowellSearch
-
already decided against him in the state courts. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, noting that Stone v. PowellSearch
-
in part, and McCurry was subsequently convicted after a jury trial. The conviction was later affirmed on appeal. State v. McCurrySearch
-
to litigate his seizure claim, McCurry was barred by this Court's decision in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
issues determined against the federal plaintiff in a state criminal trial. Id. at 798. But noting that Stone v. PowellSearch
-
the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 449 U. S. 95 of issues decided earlier in federal court suits, Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
in a new federal suit against the party who lost on the decided issue in the first case, Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSearch
-
to litigate that issue in the earlier case. Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
courts generally have also consistently accorded preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts. E.g., Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
the comity between state and federal courts that has been recognized as a bulwark of the federal system. See Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Huron Holding Corp. v. LincolnSearch
-
Davis v. DavisSearch
-
actions. But in Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
that res judicata principles fully apply to civil rights suits brought under that statute. See also Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Wolff v. PageSearch
-
of estoppel was still alive in the federal courts until well into this century, see Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. UniversitySearch
-
Ku Klux Klan and its sympathizers on the governments and law enforcement agencies of the Southern States, see Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
concern that the state courts had been deficient in Page 449 U. S. 99 protecting federal rights, Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
law rules of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Since repeals by implication are disfavored, Radzanower v. ToucheSearch
-
it was altering the balance of judicial power between the state and federal courts. See Mitchum v. FosterSearch
-
was adding to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, not subtracting from that of the state courts. See Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
plaintiffs in state court came before this Court's decision in Stone v. PowellSearch
-
The Court of Appeals thus concluded that, since Stone v. PowellSearch
-
suit. Stone v. PowellSearch
-
of which is not to redress civil injury, but to release the applicant from unlawful physical confinement, Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
of the capacity of the state courts to render correct decisions on constitutional issues. It is ironic that Stone v. PowellSearch
-
Robb v. ConnollySearch
-
The merits of the Fourth Amendment claim are discussed in the opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals. State v. McCurrySearch
-
Nevertheless, relying on the doctrine of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
of course, may require an exception to the normal rules of collateral estoppel in particular cases. E.g., Montana v. UnitedSearch
-
noted in Preiser applied res judicata to issues decided both in state civil proceedings, e.g., Coogan v. CincinnatiSearch
-
Bar Assn., 431 F.2d 1209, 1211 (CA6 1970), and state criminal proceedings, e.g., Goss v. IllinoisSearch
-
E.g., Robbins v. DistrictSearch
-
Jennings v. CaddoSearch
-
Lovely v. LaliberteSearch
-
Brown v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Tang v. AppellateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial