IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. SAM RABIN, WITNESS-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MOVANT-APPELLANT
IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. SAM RABIN, WITNESS-APPELLEE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MOVANT-APPELLANT
904 F.2d 1498
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1990)
Caution
Cited by 36 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:
On April 30, 1990, the grand jury for the Southern District of Florida issued a new subpoena identical to the subpoena that gave rise to this case. Appellee has fully complied with the new subpoena.
Appellee now moves to dismiss this appeal as moot, and appellant joins in the motion. The panel opinion, published at 896 F. 2d 1267, has already been vacated by our order of May 16,1990, granting rehearing en banc. The panel opinion will remain vacated, the judgment of the district court, 717 F.Supp. 1502, is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions that the case be dismissed. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Jones v. Gulf Coast Newspapers, Inc., 595 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…tion on the merits’’ which released Gulf Coast. There is in fact no Florida case on point. To support its position, the majority relies on Walsingham v. Browning, 525 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 904 F. 2d 1498 (11th Cir.1990). Both are distinguishable. In Walsingham the plaintiff settled a counterclaim against a defendant employee while a separate action against the employer was pending. The employer had no part in the settlement. In Citibank all parties…1 / 2
-
Dalbon v. Women's Specialty Retailing Grp., 674 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…same transaction or occurrence, and that such claims are merged into the federal court’s judgment. Because this case involves a prior federal court judgment, we apply federal claim preclusion principles. Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 904 F. 2d 1498 (1990) (even in diversity action federal court applies federal claim preclusion principles to determine effect of prior federal court judgment). Under federal claim preclusion principles, “Res judicata bars * * * a subsequent action if: (1) the pr…
-
Papa John's Int'l, Inc. v. Cosentino, 916 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…r federal judgment preclusive effect”). Under federal law, the “doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the filing of claims which were raised or could have been raised in an earlier proceeding.” Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 904 F. 2d 1498, 1501 (11th Cir. 1990). Res judicata applies where the fol [*984] lowing four elements exist: “ ‘(1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the parties were identical i…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Sam Rabin v. United States, 896 F.2d 1267 (11th Cir. 1990)
- In re Williams, 717 F. Supp. 1502 (S.D. Fla. 1987)