Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Houston v. City of Coquille

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 7, 2009No. 08-35037Published

1Concurrence

Judge IKUTA,

concurring:

I concur, but write separately because I disagree that Houston’s claims are barred by collateral estoppel. The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a federal proceeding is governed by state law. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 914-15 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1205, 114 S.Ct. 2675, 129 L.Ed.2d 810 (1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The Oregon Supreme Court has stated that a DMV proceeding lacks pre-clusive effect. See State v. Ratliff, 304 Or. 254, 259-60, 744 P.2d 247, 250 (1987) (“[T]he procedure used at license…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  2. State v. RatliffOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Chavez v. Boise Cascade CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. KruegerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API