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

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided October 2, 2009·No. 07-3712·Unpublished

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.

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

Pincite

349 F. App'x 111 (Erickson v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related