uniform federal rule in California

2023After concluding that the federal court’s involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute did not necessarily result in claim preclusion under Rule 41(b), the Hardy court acknowledged that, under Semtek, “federal common law determines the claim-preclusive effect of federal court judgments.” ( Hardy, supra, at p. 805 .) The appellate court noted further that Semtek held that when the dismissal is by a federal court sitting in diversity, “there was no need to establish a uniform federal rule since state, not federal, substantive law was at issue” (ibid.), and therefore claim preclusion would be d

2023After concluding that the federal court’s involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute did not necessarily result in claim preclusion under Rule 41(b), the Hardy court acknowledged that, under Semtek, “federal common law determines the claim-preclusive effect of federal court judgments.” ( Hardy, supra, at p. 805 .) The appellate court noted further that Semtek held that when the dismissal is by a federal court sitting in diversity, “there was no need to establish a uniform federal rule since state, not federal, substantive law was at issue” (ibid.), and therefore claim preclusion would be d

2014Exchange (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1452 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 ] [“California follows the rule that the preclusive effect of a prior judgment of a federal court is determined by federal law, at least where the prior judgment was on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.”].) While federal common law also governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity, the federal Supreme Court concluded there was no need to establish a uniform federal rule since state, not federal, substantive law was at issue, explaining: “And indeed, nationwide uniformity in th

2014Exchange (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1452 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 521 ] [“California follows the rule that the preclusive effect of a prior judgment of a federal court is determined by federal law, at least where the prior judgment was on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.”].) While federal common law also governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity, the federal Supreme Court concluded there was no need to establish a uniform federal rule since state, not federal, substantive law was at issue, explaining: “And indeed, nationwide uniformity in th

2013Defendant notes that immigration authorities are free to ignore state rehabilitative reductions and expungements for immigration purposes, citing Murillo-Espinoza v. I.N.S. (9th Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 771, 774 (court adopts conclusion of Board of Immigration Appeals that Congress intended to establish a uniform federal rule precluding recognition of subsequent state rehabilitative expungements of convictions). 2 In denying defendant’s motion to vacate her 1998 plea, the court below observed that the minute order clearly reflects that defendant was advised of her immigration consequences by either

1989Defendants correctly point out that this internal/external distinction was rejected by the Supreme Court in Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De La Cuesta, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 170, fn. 23 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 686 ].

1989Defendants correctly point out that this internal/external distinction was rejected by the Supreme Court in Fidelity Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. De La Cuesta, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 170, fn. 23 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 686 ].

1987(People v. Superior Court (Smolin) (1986) 41 Cal.3d 758, 770 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 438 , 716 P2d 991 ], revd. by the United States Supreme Court on different grounds, California v. Superior Court (Smolin) (1987) 482 U.S. 400 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 332 , 107 S.Ct. 2433 ].) The United States Supreme Court decision in Smolin also held the PKPA creates a uniform federal rule governing custody determinations to which state courts must adhere.

1987(People v. Superior Court (Smolin) (1986) 41 Cal.3d 758, 770 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 438 , 716 P2d 991 ], revd. by the United States Supreme Court on different grounds, California v. Superior Court (Smolin) (1987) 482 U.S. 400 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 332 , 107 S.Ct. 2433 ].) The United States Supreme Court decision in Smolin also held the PKPA creates a uniform federal rule governing custody determinations to which state courts must adhere.

1976This is a matter of federal, not local, law (United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14 [ 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1273-1274 , 55 S.Ct. 610 ]; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55-56 [ 70 L.Ed. 465, 468-469 , 46 S.Ct. 197 ]), and a uniform federal test is 1 mandatory upon the state and federal courts alike.

1976This is a matter of federal, not local, law (United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14 [ 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1273-1274 , 55 S.Ct. 610 ]; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55-56 [ 70 L.Ed. 465, 468-469 , 46 S.Ct. 197 ]), and a uniform federal test is 1 mandatory upon the state and federal courts alike.

1976This is a matter of federal, not local, law (United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14 [ 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1273-1274 , 55 S.Ct. 610 ]; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55-56 [ 70 L.Ed. 465, 468-469 , 46 S.Ct. 197 ]), and a uniform federal test is 1 mandatory upon the state and federal courts alike.

1976This is a matter of federal, not local, law (United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 14 [ 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1273-1274 , 55 S.Ct. 610 ]; United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 55-56 [ 70 L.Ed. 465, 468-469 , 46 S.Ct. 197 ]), and a uniform federal test is 1 mandatory upon the state and federal courts alike.