L.Ed.2d 374 (2000)(this case originated under federal law and the effect of issue preclusion was determined applying federal common law). See, e.g., 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 523.06, at 523-22 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, eds., 16th ed. rev. 2011). 57 . Judge Nelson of the Supreme Court of Minnesota made this observation with respect to consent judgments, which is insightful, but not controlling on this Court: A consent judgment is based wholly on the consent of the parties and there is no judicial inquiry into the facts or the law applicable to the controversy. Moreover, in a consent judgment it is the duty of the court to enter judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the court’s authority is limited by the consent or stipulation ... Such a judgment is 07) (<HOLDING>); La Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, S.A.
holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority holding that 28 usc  1961a applies to bankruptcy court judgments because a bankruptcy court is a unit of the district court holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation holding that the district court sitting in review of the decision of the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failure to pay over taxes was willful because the bankruptcy court had made no findings on willfulness we remanded for bankruptcy court findings holding a bankruptcy court may adopt state holdings where the state court consent judgments were detailed recitations of the findings upon which they were based