1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 758 F.2d
  5. 758 F.2d 1140 (1985)
 

FELLOWSHIP OF CHRIST CHURCH v. THORBURN

No. 83-1623.

758 F.2d 1140 (1985)

The FELLOWSHIP OF CHRIST CHURCH, a Michigan Ecclesiastical corporation: Robert C. Young and Patricia R. Young, his wife; Jane C. Jones; Merrilee M. Young; James J. MacKenzie and Robin J. MacKenzie, his wife; Herbert Bursch; John A. Young and Kay Young, his wife; Glori B. Ingram; Peter Joel Young; Sarah S. Young; Joyce E. King; Linda K. Hoeks; Kathleen Anderson Young; Paul N. King; Newell E. King; Christopher L. Young and Georgia C. Young, his wife; Jeffrey A. Clark and Ann E. Clark, his wife; Ellen Susan King; Anita M. King; James E. King; Glenn King; Ida Pool; Madeline Mathison; Millard Eldred and Nina Eldred, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James S. THORBURN; Joseph L. Hardig, Jr.; Robert Bogrette and Judith Bogrette, his wife; William Cuppy and Tracie Cuppy, his wife; Olaf Helland and Emerin Helland, his wife; John T. Hughes and Bernice Hughes, his wife; Kenneth Staugaard and Elizabeth Staugaard, his wife; Charles Cohoon and Carol Cohoon, his wife; Leo Burton; Heartpeace Hills Homeowners Association, a Michigan non-profit corporation, and John A. Cook, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided April 5, 1985.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Timothy P. Young, Lansing, Mich., Jonathan E. Maire, Williamston, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John A. Cook (argued), William H. Horton, Birmingham, Mich., for defendants-appellees.

Kenneth Wilson, Hardig, Goetz, Heath, Merritt, Reebe, Birmingham, Mich., for Hardig.

K.M. Zorn (argued), Carol J. Dufraine, Detroit, Mich., Leo Farhat, Lansing, Mich., for Thorburn.

Before MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants challenge the district court's holding that res judicata bars relitigation under § 1983 of their claim, which has been finally determined in state court. The appellants contend that res judicata does not bar their claim primarily because they never received an evidentiary hearing in state court, and secondarily because not all of the federal plaintiffs participated in and are bound by the state litigation. We find these contentions to be...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases