October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1551
Can a state court ignore a federal judgment's finality?
Parties dispute whether a state court must honor a federal judgment's finality.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Michael Gottesman argued the case involves a state-law business tort.
David Dellinger argued the state court process is unworkable.
Dellinger claimed the state court can apply its own limitations period.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Semtek International and Lockheed Martin dispute the effect of a federal judgment in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-21
What each side wants
Semtek wants the state court to treat the federal judgment as final.
Lockheed Martin wants the state court to apply its own procedural rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
What each side says
Semtek argues the federal judgment binds the state court.
Lockheed Martin argues the state court controls its own procedure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
What the justices asked
Does the federal judgment dictate the state court's procedure?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-21
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between federal and state judicial authority. It determines how state courts treat federal judgments. It affects the finality of federal litigation outcomes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-21
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 13-9 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 13-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.