Erickson v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America

Eighth Circuit

Erickson v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America

349 F. App'x 111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 2, 2009

Docket07-3712

StatusUnpublished

This text of 349 F. App'x 111 (Erickson v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erickson v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, 349 F. App'x 111 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Erickson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action with prejudice. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Erickson’s claims as precluded by a prior state-court judgment of dismissal with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (full faith and credit for state judicial proceedings); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (Congress has specifically required federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever courts of state from which judgment emerged would do so); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.2006) (de novo review); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn.2007) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Minnesota law); Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn.2004) (setting forth elements of collateral estoppel under Minnesota law); Nelson v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 651 N.W.2d 499, 511 (Minn.2002) (“[R]es judicata bars not only claims as to matters actually litigated, but also as to every matter that might have been litigated in prior proceeding.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Erickson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action with prejudice. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Erickson’s claims as precluded by a prior state-court judgment of dismissal with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (full faith and credit for state judicial proceedings); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (Congress has specifically required federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever courts of state from which judgment emerged would do so); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.2006) (de novo review); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn.2007) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Minnesota law); Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829, 837 (Minn.2004) (setting forth elements of collateral estoppel under Minnesota law); Nelson v. Am. Family Ins. Group, 651 N.W.2d 499, 511 (Minn.2002) (“[R]es judicata bars not only claims as to matters actually litigated, but also as to every matter that might have been litigated in prior proceeding.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 F. App'x 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-allianz-life-insurance-co-of-north-america-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack