Cluster 563257 (1991)

Gas Corp. , 936 F.2d 212 , 217 (5th Cir. 1991) ("Section 1738 directs this federal court to give the Texas judgment the same effect as it would have in a Texas court."); McWilliams v. McWilliams , 804 F.2d 1400 , 1402 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1738 , a federal court must give to a state court the same preclusive effect that a court of the state in which the judgment was rendered would give it." (citing Kremer…

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 219 (5th Cir. 1991); Davis v. Chase Home Finance, L.L.C., 597 F. App’x 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“[E]ven if the chancery court’s determination . . . was erroneous, its preclusive effect on this court remains binding.”). 13 Case: 18-60083 Document: 00514791513 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/11/2019 No. 18-60083 In Felder, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the state’s notice-of-claim statute applied to § 1983 actions brought in state court.

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 219 (5th Cir.1991).

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d at 217 (noting in a bankruptcy case that “[s]ection 1738 directs this federal court to give the Texas judgment the same effect as it would have in a Texas court”).

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 217 (5th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 657 , 116 L.

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

Any attempt by the parties to relitigate any of the matters that were raised or could have been raised therein is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.” Matter of Brady, 936 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

Any attempt by the parties to relitigate any of the matters that were raised or could have been raised therein is barred under the doctrine of res judicata." Matter of Brady, 936 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1334 (a), (b) (West 2004); In re Brady, 936 F.2d at 218.

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1991) ("[T]he only aspect of the bankruptcy proceeding over which the district courts and their bankruptcy units have exclusive jurisdiction is the bankruptcy petition itself.

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding: “Although the district courts ‘have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11,’ the district courts do not have ‘exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C.A. § 1334 (b)); In re Weinberg, 153 B.R. 286, 290 (S.D.S.D. 1993) (noting: “Non- exclusive jurisdiction means other federal and state courts are not…

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90 , 92 (5th Cir. 1987)).

Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1991).

In re Brady, 936 F.2d at 218; In re Epstein, 314 B.R. 591 at 599-600 (quoting Brady). 17 .

In other matters arising in or related to title 11 cases, unless the Code provides otherwise, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction ... and bankruptcy courts are prohibit *600 ed from relitigating these matters if the state courts have already resolved them Sanders, 936 F.2d at 218 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).

Any attempt by the parties to relitigate any of the matters that were raised or could have been raised therein is barred under the doctrine of res *496 judicata.” Sanders v. City of Brady (In the Matter of Brady), 936 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir.1991) (emphasis in original).

Sanders v. City of Brady (Matter of Brady, Texas Municipal Gas Corp.), 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir.1991) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

See, e.g., Brady, 936 F.2d at 219 (“At most, this provision enabled the bankruptcy court to adjudicate the dispute between the City and the appellants even though the debtor’s plan was already confirmed; it did not divest the state court of its concurrent jurisdiction to resolve that dispute.”).

See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 805 , 105 S.Ct. 2965 , (1985); Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, 455 U.S. 691, 704-05 , 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1366 , 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421 , 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1188 , 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), reh’g denied, 441 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2018 , 60 L.Ed.2d 389 (1979); Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726 , 66 S.Ct. 853 , 90 L.Ed. 970 …

Any attempt by the parties to relitigate any of the matters that were raised or could have been raised therein is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.” Matter of Brady, 936 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Or.), cert. denied,_U.S.___ 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

See In re Brady, 936 F.2d 212 , 217 (5th Cir.), 15 The Debtors would have us draw a distinction in this case because the dismissal was the result of a sanction order.

See Sanders v. City of Brady (In re Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corp.), 936 F.2d 212, 218-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991) (although the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under a reorganization plan, that jurisdiction was not exclusive of state court jurisdiction); cf. Watson v. Shandell (In re Watson), 192 B.R. 739, 748 (9th Cir. BAP 1996).

Martin-Trigona v. Belford (In re Martin Trigona), 781 F.2d 36, 39 (2d Cir.1986) (plan expressly provided for the sale of the debtor's assets to third party); accord Sanders v. City of Brady (In re Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corp.), 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir.) (plan provided for transfer of debtor's assets to the city), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991); Cunningham v. Healthco, Inc., 824 F.2d 1448, 1460 (5th Cir.1987) (plan provided that de…

Martin-Trigona v. Belford (In re Martin Trigona), 781 F.2d 36, 39 (2d Cir.1986) (plan expressly provided for the sale of the debtor’s assets to third party); accord Sanders v. City of Brady (In re Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corp.), 936 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir.) (plan provided for transfer of debtor’s assets to the city), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991); Cunningham v. Healthco, Inc., 824 F.2d 1448, 1460 (5th Cir.1987) (plan provided that debtor’…

See In re Brady, 936 F.2d 212 , 217 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed.2d 748 (1991).

See also Sanders v. City of Brady, 936 F. 2d 212 , 218 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1013 , 112 S.Ct. 657 , 116 L.Ed 2d 748 (1991).

See also Matter of Brady, 936 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir.1991) ("An arrangement confirmed by a bankruptcy court has the effect of a judgment rendered by a district court.

Conn. 1984); see also Matter of Brady, Texas, Municipal Gas Corp., 936 F.2d 212 , 218 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.