engaged in a civil conspiracy with [named and unnamed defendants] to defraud [the RTC as Receiver for Universal Savings] in connection with [the Houston Storage transaction]?” The RTC then sought to put what amounts to the same question before the district court in the dischargeability proceeding: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Carpenter participated in a scheme to defraud the RTC as receiver for Universal Savings? However, as the Supreme Court explained in Ashe v. Swenson, “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Because the is 7-78 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). E In addition to arguing that the issues are
holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding that jury verdict in prior state court fraud action including finding that debtor willfully breached fiduciary duty had preclusive effect on courts determination of nondischargeability based on defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity under  523a4 holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that judgment in prior state court proceeding against debtor in which court found that debtor made false representations had preclusive effect on courts determination of nondischargeability under  523a2a based on false representations