Blair

MEMORANDUM **

The facts and procedural history require no recitation, being familiar to the parties. The question is whether the juvenile court decision and its affirmation by the Oregon Court of Appeals issue-preclude plaintiff Blair from relitigating whether he sexually molested his son for if they do, this action is barred in its entirety. They do, unless they denied Blair a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in violation of due process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2000); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 480-82 , 102 S.Ct. 1883 , 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 100-01 , 101 S.Ct. 411 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Nelson v. Emerald People’s Util. Dist., 318 Or. 99 , 862 P.2d 1293, 1296-97 (1993).

Blair claims that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of whether he molested his son because the suppression of material evidence by the defendants in the juvenile court, which he could not reasonably have found prior to the hearing, had a significant effect on the outcome of the litigation. Furthermore, he contends that the refusal of the juvenile court to consider certain critical evidence he proffered and the…