Houston v. City of Coquille
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- State v. RatliffOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Chavez v. Boise Cascade CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. KruegerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000