Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank
474 U.S. 518 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act does not permit a federal court to enjoin a state court proceeding after the state court has fully and fairly litigated and rejected a claim of res judicata; under the Full Faith and Credit Act, the federal court must give the state court's decision on the preclusion issue the same effect it would have in that state's courts.
Facts:
- Parsons Steel, Inc., and its owners, Jim and Melba Parsons, had a business relationship with First Alabama Bank of Montgomery and its officer, Edward Herbert.
- The Parsonses alleged that the bank fraudulently induced them to allow a third party to gain control over a subsidiary of Parsons Steel.
- This third party ultimately obtained complete ownership of the subsidiary.
- The subsidiary was subsequently adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt.
- The bank later conducted a foreclosure sale of the subsidiary's assets, which the Parsonses alleged was commercially unreasonable.
Procedural Posture:
- Parsons Steel, Inc., and the Parsonses (Petitioners) sued First Alabama Bank (Respondents) in Alabama state court for fraud.
- While the state case was pending, Petitioners sued Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alabama based on the same conduct, alleging a violation of the federal Bank Holding Company Act.
- The federal case went to trial first, and the District Court entered judgment in favor of the bank.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this federal judgment.
- Respondents then asserted defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the state court action, based on the federal judgment.
- The Alabama state court rejected these defenses and proceeded to trial.
- A state court jury returned a verdict of over four million dollars in favor of the Petitioners.
- After losing in state court, Respondents returned to the U.S. District Court and filed a new action seeking an injunction to stop Petitioners from enforcing the state court judgment.
- The District Court granted the injunction, finding the state claims were barred by res judicata.
- Petitioners appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's grant of the injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act permit a federal court to enjoin state court proceedings to protect its prior judgment, even after the state court has already fully and fairly litigated and rejected a res judicata defense based on that federal judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act does not create an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Act. Once a state court has finally rejected a claim of res judicata, the Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to give that state court's decision the same preclusive effect it would have in another court of that state. The court reasoned that repeals by implication are disfavored, and the two statutes can be read consistently by limiting the relitigation exception to situations where the state court has not yet ruled on the res judicata issue. If a party believes the state court incorrectly decided the preclusive effect of a federal judgment, the proper remedy is to appeal through the state court system and then seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, not to collaterally attack the judgment by seeking an injunction in federal court.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between the Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Faith and Credit Act, prioritizing principles of comity and federalism. It establishes that a state court's determination on the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment is itself a judgment entitled to full faith and credit. This prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate reviewers of state court decisions on res judicata, thereby forcing litigants who lose on that issue in state court to exhaust their state appellate remedies rather than seeking a more favorable forum.
Unlock the full brief for Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank