# Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge George N. Kiroff

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 31, 1977 · 549 F.2d 1052

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463517

## Case

- **Full name:** LAMB ENTERPRISES, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Judge George N. KIROFF Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1977
- **Citations:** 549 F.2d 1052; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCREE
- **Judges:** Phillips, McCree, Engel
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463517

## Opinion text

McCREE, Circuit Judge (concurring).
I concur in the decision of the court, which requires the permanent injunction to be vacated.
I agree with Part V of the majority opinion, because the issuance of an injunction directed personally against two state court judges and two state court employees was, on the facts of this case, an improper interference in the operations of the state courts. See Smith v. Martin, 542 F.2d 688 (6th Cir. 1976). The complaint against them should have been dismissed.
I do not believe, however, that the allegations in the complaint set forth a violation by the remaining defendant, Russell Brown, of 28 U.S.C. § 1738 and of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 1, cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . A private party like Brown who initiates in a state court an action that may be subject to the defense of res judicata does not thereby violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which imposes a duty only upon the state. Because we have determined that the defendants who are judicial officers and their supporting personnel may not, on these facts, be properly enjoined, and because the complaint does not state a claim against the private defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ,1 would reverse the judgment of the district court.
Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to discuss the applicability of the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 , 95 S.Ct. 1200 , 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975), to injunctions against the maintenance of purely civil actions to which the state or its agents are not parties. Cf. Louisville Area Interfaith Committee for United Farm Workers v. Nottingham Liquors, Ltd., 542 F.2d 652 (6th Cir. 1976). Nor is it necessary to decide whether there is a relitigation exception to the Younger-Huffman doctrine, as there is a relitigation exception to the doctrine’s statutory analogue, the federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463517. Public record. Not legal advice.