addressed this issue are in agreement regarding the preclu-sive effect tó be accorded a state court’s denial of personal jurisdiction. For instance, in Deckert v. Wachovia Student Financial Services, 963 F.2d at 818-819, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction where the same jurisdictional issue had already been presented to, and decided by the state court. Likewise, in Eaton v. Weaver Mfg. Co., 582 F.2d 1250, 1255 (10th Cir.1978), the court held that' the parties cannot reliti-gate the merits of a jurisdictional claim already decided by a state court. See also Pickert v. Cambridge Sav. Bank, 618 F.Supp. 286, 288 (D.D.C.1986); Miller v. United States, 603 F.Supp. 1244 (D.D.C.1985) (<HOLDING>). Since the scope of this Court’s long-arm
holding that federal district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the decision of a district of columbia high court determining application of a local rule to the case before it holding that law of the case prevented the new jersey district court from redetermining jurisdictional issue previously decided by the district of columbia district court and noting that the principles of comity among courts of the same level of the federal system provide further reason why  an issue already decided by a court of equal authority should not be reexamined holding that district court lacked power to decide personal jurisdiction issue already decided by district of columbia superior court holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar