inequitable to do so, it makes inimitable sense to preserve and use whatever firm judicial decisions have been made previously on a particular issue. To accomplish that, however, the power to determine the preclusive effect of judgments must not be left in the hands of parties who are interested in avoiding such effects. Although no other circuit courts have addressed the precise issue whether a partial summary judgment order can support issue preclusion, several courts have implied that they take a less formalistic approach to the finality requirement than the Fifth Circuit. Dyndul v. Dyndul, 620 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir.1980) (advocating a “pragmatic approach with reference to judicial policy rather than to finality in a technical sense”); In re Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 568-70 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d
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 holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court 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 state court summary judgment order should be given preclusive effect even though it was not yet appealable because state court showed no intention of reversing its decision and demonstrated knowledge of the applicable facts and law