Congress’s general policy that “state proceedings ‘should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately [the Supreme] Court.’ ” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 146, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.E , 659 F.2d 1332, 1334-35 (5th Cir. Unit A 1984) (upholding injunction forbidding certain plaintiffs in federal class action suit from pursuing litigation in state court in South Carolina and rejecting as frivolous plaintiffs’ contention that denying them opportunity to sue for damages under more favorable South Carolina law deprived them of property without due process of law); Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 657 F.2d 939, 946-47 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Samuel C. Ennis & Co., Inc. v. Woodmar Realty
holding that denial of class certification in stillpending federal action lacked sufficient finality to invoke relitigation exception to antiinjunction act holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court holding that third exception to antiinjunction act permits federal courts to enjoin state court relitigation of matters finally adjudicated in federal court including matters that were not raised but could have been raised in federal proceeding holding that collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously adjudicated matters holding federal court was not precluded by antiinjunction act from enjoining florida state court after state court entered a preliminary order