effect to the Phase I findings in accordance with those decisions. Rather than decide the issue in this federal case on the basis of plaintiffs’ record-based showing-— a showing which Martin and Jimmie Lee Broum do not require — the more appropriate approach is to tackle head-on Defendants’ position that the application of Florida preclusion law in Martin and Jimmie Lee Brown is inconsistent with due process. The Court therefore declines plaintiffs’ invitation to hold that their Broum Proffer satisfies the requirements of Bernice Broum II or of federal due process, as neither finding is required to decide the issue before the Court. D. Due Process While “[s]tate courts are generally free to develop their own rules for protecting against the relitigation of common issues or the (<HOLDING>). The critical first step in this
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 deprivation of property must conform to due process principles holding that a state court judgment did not have a preclusive effect where the record failed to demonstrate that the state court conducted a hearing in which the party was required to meets its burden of proof recognizing that federalstate court can violate fifthfourteenth amendment due process where giving preclusive effect to state court judgment would deprive a party of their property without any judicial determination of the fact upon which alone such deprivation could be justified 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