text:
The muckrakers at MediaTakeOut have done it again, this time uncovering a very odd legal document that was drawn up in 2007 by lawyers representing NBA player J.J. Redick and his then-pregnant ex-girlfriend, model Vanessa Lopez. The document is essentially a contract that seems to be the result of Redick and Lopez negotiating how the latter's impending abortion should be handled.
You can read the full document here, but here are the relevant parts:
Basically, Lopez agreed to undergo an abortion on the condition that Redick agree to maintain a "relationship" with her for at least one year. Yes, that is very strange. But! Things get stranger still:
The contract goes on to make further stipulations, including a confidentiality agreement and a warning that any contact between the two after the "relationship" has reached its conclusion would be considered stalking.
Redick was a 22-year-old rookie at the time this agreement was drawn up, and Lopez has since gone on to date and get into legal disputes with other NBA players. We can now add this document into the annals of sad and scummy things that happen when basketball players hook up with models.


text:
Quentin Jones: Naked With Paint
Illustrator, animator, fashion filmmaker, and all-around hottie Quentin Jones paints a daring self-portrait in an inky new film for NOWNESS. The London-based model and Cambridge philosophy graduate uses her body as animated canvas, combining stop-motion, cut-outs, and illustrations in a cheeky (and incredibly sexy) nod to Dadaism.
View Jones' video "Naked With Paint" via NOWNESS.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Health & Safety
Authorizing Body:
Executive Vice President for Administration & Business Affairs – EVP-ABA
Responsible Department:
Campus Facilities
Applies To:
{{ appliesTo }}
Adopted Date:
Print Policy
The University endeavors to maintain safe working conditions for its staff and a safe and healthy environment for its students and visitors.
All University staff in supervisory positions are responsible for maintaining conditions which will provide for the safety, well-being and safe conduct of all people who report to him/her or who frequent his/her area. Faculty and staff with supervisory responsibilities should ensure that their students and staff members are aware of the importance of safety, maintain safe working conditions, and set examples of safe conduct. Everyone is required to observe established safety principles and procedures.
The Campus Facilities Department works with the University community to maintain a healthy learning and work environment. The Department will:
a. Survey matters of environmental health and safety, environmental sanitation, occupational safety, occupational health and accident prevention and radiation safety.
b. Coordinate and assist in educating the standards applicable to University-associated activities and safety efforts throughout the University.
c. Advise faculty and staff relating to biosafety and biological safety cabinets.
d. Develop accident prevention programs.
e. Provide advice.
f. Render service.
g. Investigate incidents in cooperation with other regulatory or law enforcement agencies.
The Director of Environmental Health and Safety reports hazardous conditions to the Executive Vice President for Administration & Business Affairs or designee, and to the office or department responsible for correction.


text:
Why Reagan National Could Make or Break the American-US Airways Merger
When US Airways and AMR's American Airlines agreed to merge back in February, proponents of the $11 billion deal believed that it would allow both the bankrupt American and the undersized US Airways to become competitive with the much larger Delta Air Lines and United Continental . Yet even though regulators had approved the Delta-Northwest and United-Continental mergers that created the two largest U.S. airlines in the industry, the Department of Justice challenged the American-US Airways proposal on anti-competitive grounds, and one of the biggest bones of contention came from a single airport: Washington's Reagan National.
With the merger in jeopardy, US Airways and American are now reportedly seriously considering giving up part of their combined presence at Reagan National if it will lead to a settlement with the Justice Department prior to its trial late next month. Let's take a closer look at why Reagan National has become the key bargaining chip in the merger and what's at stake for the industry.
Reagan National Airport at night. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
The peculiarities of Washington airspace
From an antitrust perspective, one big question for American and US Airways hinges on how you define the market. The two airlines have argued that when you consider all three airports that serve the Washington metropolitan area, including both Dulles in Virginia and Baltimore-Washington in Maryland, the combined entity would only control about a quarter of the available seats in the market. On the other hand, if you look just at Reagan alone, US Airways and American would own more than two-thirds of the airport's available slots.
Slots are especially important at Reagan National for a couple of reasons. First, air-traffic congestion led the FAA to set limits on takeoffs and landings at five major airports, including Reagan National, in 1969. Reagan National's slot rule initially set a limit of 62 landings and takeoffs, and several rounds of federal legislation added a total of 54 new slots between 2000 and 2012. Even with the expansion, the slot rule produces almost impenetrable barriers to entry to new airlines seeking to serve the airport without bargaining with existing slot holders.
Second, Reagan National is subject to what's called the "Perimeter Rule," which limits flights to within a 1,250-mile radius of the airport. The federal government has established limited exceptions to the Perimeter Rule, with US Airways having the most beyond-perimeter slot exemptions of any airline. The combined US Airways would have exclusive rights to serve Phoenix, Las Vegas, and San Diego from Reagan National, as well as a key flight-pair between Washington and Los Angeles.
Can it really get any worse?
One key issue, though, is that even the existing situation at Reagan National is far from competitive by the Justice Department's definition. Overall, American controls a relatively small portion of the total slots that the merged entity would have at Reagan National and already US Airways has more than half of the total slots available. By that standard, it's hard to determine just how much more of an anticompetitive effect American's loss of independence would have on the market -- or whether the Justice Department would be seek to reduce the combined entity's presence at Reagan National even below what US Airways currently has.
Meanwhile, interested parties from both sides of the debate are eagerly awaiting a final outcome to the controversy. Among rival airlines, Southwest would clearly like to gain more of a presence at Reagan National, as it currently relies largely on the much less convenient Baltimore-Washington Airport. Other airlines like JetBlue stand to gain if moves from US Airways and American to give up slots improve their competitive position on their own routes. Unions are largely in favor of the merger, as the companies have granted concessions that would include pay raises for many employees. Other key cities where US Airways and American have substantial presences have lobbied for the merger as well.
Perhaps the most interesting thing, though, is that even after shares of both AMR and US Airways plunged after the Justice Department challenged the deal, both stocks have since reached new multiyear highs. Even as a January 18 deadline to complete the merger looms, it could be that thanks to the big improvement in economic conditions in the airline industry, investors have the least to lose even if the deal doesn't go through.
Aerial view of Reagan National Airport. Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
How to send your portfolio flying high
If you want to make money in airlines, you have to think long term. Beyond all the controversy that American and US Airways have created with their merger plans, two other airlines are breaking all the rules by keeping costs low and avoiding direct competition -- leading to enviable profits. Click here to learn how these two airlines are leading a revolution in the industry, and discover whether they can keep delivering big gains for shareholders!
The article Why Reagan National Could Make or Break the American-US Airways Merger originally appeared on Fool.com.
Fool contributor Dan Caplinger has no position in any stocks mentioned. You can follow him on Twitter @DanCaplinger. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned, either. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


text:
For a limited time, get your first month of KidPass for free!
Free Month!
then $49 per month
Credits rollover for 90 days
Membership Benefits
Access hundreds of partners near you
Book any activity in our network including play spaces, sports, museums, and more
Members-only savings
Save up to 70% off regular drop-in prices by booking with us
Credits that rollover
If you can't use all your credits this month, they rollover up to 90 days
Fun for the whole family
Enjoy the convenience of just one membership for all your kids and all their activities
Flexibility your family needs
Drop into all of our classes without committing to full semesters
A community for parents
Exploring activities on KidPass is a great way to meet other families in your neighborhood
Trial Account FAQs
When does my trial start?
Your trial starts when you sign up and you can start booking activities right away!
How does my trial work?
Once you have signed up, you can use your credits to book right away! Explore activities by category, location, and age range to find the perfect match for your child. Choose your activity, book the spot, and show up ready to have some fun!
Why is my credit card information needed?
A credit card is needed on file so that you have the option to buy more credits or upgrade your account seamlessly. At the end of your trial, you will automatically be enrolled in a monthly plan on KidPass, unless you cancel before your trial ends.
Does the trial auto-renew?
Yes. After your trial ends, you will automatically be enrolled in a monthly plan on KidPass, unless you cancel before your trial ends.
How do credits work?
Activities on KidPass cost varying amounts of credits based on factors like location and type of activity. You can choose to spend your credits however you'd like. You are allotted more credits at the beginning of each month and can purchase any additional credits you may need along the way.
What is your cancellation policy?
There are no commitments, and you may cancel at any time.
What if I can't use all of my credits?
No worries, your credits roll over for 90 days. Use them when your schedule allows.


text:
My kids always seem to grow like beanstalks over the summer. Inevitably, they grow out of their hot weather clothes sometime around July.
This year, the Shorts on the Line sew along arrived at just the right time to make something for the now much taller, Kid No 2.
For these shorts I used the Sandbox Pants by Oliver + S. It's a really great pattern, that I've used a few times before.
I didn't make many modifications. I shortened the pants to shorts. I also left off the drawstring waist and used a simple elastic waist. I left off the buttons on the pockets as well. Kid No 2 is not a fan of either. Drawstrings and buttons are his kryptonite. They also take longer, so I'm not complaining!
The pattern calls for 1 3/4 yards for the pants, but I got these shorts out of 1 yard of fabric.
The print is Scoot Scoot in Blue from the Havana collection by Monaluna. It's a really nice, smooth organic cotton. I love the print, but unfortunately it was printed slightly off grain, which made cutting and pattern matching a bit of a pain. I've used other prints from the collection, without any problem, so I guess I was just unlucky this time.
Kid No. 2 loves bright colours and fun, but age-appropriate prints. Unfortunately, most of the clothes in the stores for boys his age are in darker, and/or more serious colours – lots of navy, grey and beige (yawn). One of the great things about sewing my kids' clothes is being able to make them the things they really like.
This is also a stash-busting project for the Stashbusting Sewalong. I bought this fabric maybe a year ago, so I'm really happy to get it into regular rotation.
Pattern Review: Sandbox Pants as shorts by Oliver + S.
Fabric: Scoot Scoot in Blue from the Havana collection by Monaluna (organic).
Size: 6.
Fabric: about $16. Pattern: $0, since I'd used it before.
Sewing Level: Advanced beginner.
Modifications: I shortened the pants to shorts, changed the waist from a drawstring to an elastic waist, and left off the buttons on the back pockets.
Results: Great. I've used this pattern a few times before and will definitely use it again.


text:
We told you yesterday that we were taking this LEGO business to the next level–and here it is. Yesterday afternoon, LEGO received this letter from us along with a printout of all 47,000 signatures on our petition at the time of the writing. We're proud of the conversation that we've started, and now we want to talk to LEGO directly. We're looking forward to hearing from them, and we'll keep you posted.
Dear Jorgen Vig Knudstorp (Chief Executive Officer, The Lego Group), Michael McNally (Brand Relations Director), Charlotte Simonsen (Head of Corporate Communications) and Mads Nipper (Executive Vice President):
We represent the girls, the parents, the children, the fans, the hobbyists, the collectors, the friends, the big sisters and brothers, the grandparents, and your future. And we are very disappointed. We used to believe in you. You used to create and market toys in line with your published mission to "inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow." We bought your blocks to build magical fortresses, castles, space ships and fantasylands. We trusted you. Until last month, when you sold out our girls and started to blow away their future with little yellow, plastic hair dryers.
Your new Friends marketing campaign is not only insulting and condescending, but it is dangerous. As members of the SPARKTeam, girl activists (ages 13-22) from throughout North America fighting to end the sexualization of girls, we request a meeting between ourselves, representatives of SPARK partner organizations, and your marketing and executive team so that we can share the abundant scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals (not "market research," designed to best target little girls and their moms as consumers) that demonstrates the negative impact sexist marketing campaigns like yours have on girls as they grow up and become young women. SPARK is a coalition of more than 70 orgs and reaches tens of thousands of girls and those who support their healthy development.
On December 22, we initiated a petition demanding that you include more girls in your marketing for all LEGO products. Over 47,000 people have signed, and more are signing every hour. Our concerns have been published and discussed to date in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Toronto Star, Today Show, NPR, The Huffington Post and dozens of other radio shows, newspapers, and TV newscasts as well as in hundreds of blog posts. Millions of parents, girls and boys, are listening to us and demanding that you reconsider your marketing approach. We fully understand that the trend in marketing is to sell a narrow, commercialized version of gender to younger and younger children. The pink and blue aisles of toy stores are testament to the success of this approach, as is the volume of toys with a teen edge marketed to very young girls. But we were surprised and dismayed when LEGO went this same route. Toys like LEGO have and should continue to open up creative options and give children a wide range of experiences, not shut these options down or channel them along the same narrow pathways other toy lines have done so effectively (Bratz dolls, for example). We expected more from you. We thought, given your mission and vision, that you actually gave girls more credit than that.
This is not about the color of your building blocks or your Friends' line, it's about the lack of faith you have in girls' skills and interests. It's about your distorted notion that, in order to buy LEGO, girls need messages about the value of shopping, clubbing, baking,and tanning. In your press release, you state that you have tried unsuccessfully to market to girls. This claim is not supported by your actions. In fact, you have offered relatively few female characters in your traditional LEGO sets, and there are rarely any girls in your commercials for those sets. You do not even showcase a girl playing with blocks on the cover of your Facebook page. The message, then, is very clear. To LEGO, there are boys and regular LEGOs. And then there are the "others": the girls. This was never an effective marketing strategy for selling LEGOs to girls, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it was. That only 9% of regular LEGO users before the Friends line were girls is thus not surprising. You had stopped selling to girls.
You defend the new Friends line by saying girls "will enjoy the exact same building experience and developmental benefits as children who choose any other LEGO theme," and yet you do not offer building instructions in your Friends catalog, as you do in the"regular" LEGO catalog. Instead you offer personalities and stories of Friends' characters with overwhelmingly stereotypical interests. We are disappointed that in reaching out to girls with "story lines that they would find interesting," you went for cafes, karaoke, makeovers and lost puppies. There can be a time and place for more mundane story lines in imaginative play, but when you offer them as the "girl" alternative to active adventure stories, you are sending girls the message that they stay home, hang with friends, and make themselves pretty and nice, while boys go out and have fun and adventures. There is no evidence, of course, that this line will have "developmental benefits" and no mention of the negative developmental impact to girls of consuming a high volume of stereotypical messages you reinforce in your Friends' line sets, for which there is substantial scientific evidence.
We think you can do better. We want you to remember that there are lots of girls not interested in sets that invite them to lounge poolside with drinks and sing in clubs. Take a look at the ones in our petition video –those are real girls. And thousands of parents, both moms and dads, who support their real girls agree. We are asking you to include more girls in your regular sets, more girls in your commercials, and we want your blocks marketed to girls and sold in the "girls aisles" of stores. We know LEGO can be that one company that offers girls the message that they have choices and we know LEGO has the will and creativity to encourage girls to start making their own choices.
We have included our petition and a printed list of the 47,427 people who stand with us. You have the opportunity to make a difference–to fulfill your mission. You wrote recently that, "We have a long history of listening very carefully to the opinions and requests of our consumers." We look forward to our conversation. Please contact Dana Edell, SPARK's Executive Director, at email@example.com with potential dates and times for our meeting.
Stephanie Cole and Bailey Shoemaker Richards, SPARKTeam representatives, with
Dana Edell, Ph.D., SPARK Director
Lyn Mikel Brown, Ed.D., SPARK Co-Founder
Deborah Tolman, Ed.D., SPARK Co-Founder
SPARK partners:
Audrey Brashich, Author of All Made Up: A Girl's Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity
Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty
Nancy Gruver, New Moon Girls
Amy Harmon, Becoming a Better Woman
Amy Jussel, Shaping Youth
Margot Magowan, Reel Girl
Jennifer Shewmaker, PhD, LSSP, Operation Transformation
Robyn Silverman, Child/Teen Development Specialist
Melissa Wardy, Pigtail Pals
Megan Williams, Hardy Girls Healthy Women and Powered By Girl
Jamia Wilson & Julie Burton, Women's Media Center
Michele Yulo, Princess-Free Zone
Amy Zucherro, Miss Representation


text:
All tourists have been rescued off Sasquatch Mountain Resort in the Fraser Valley, five days after a landslide trigged by heavy flooding washed out the only access road.
About 150 local residents and employees remain, said resort spokesperson Shelby Lim on Thursday. Resort officials are working with Ministry of Transportation staff to rebuild and re-open the road as soon as possible.
"We hope to open the resort in some capacity to the public this weekend with single-lane alternating traffic on the road, but will not have confirmation from the road crews until Friday," resort staff stated.
"The safety of our guests is our top priority, so we are unable to open until we receive full clearance."
An estimated 500 people, including 100 staff, were trapped at the ski resort last Saturday after the heavy rain damaged as much as one kilometre of Hemlock Valley Road. There were more guests than usual because of a race scheduled for the weekend.
Helicopters had managed to ferry most out of the area by late Sunday. Ministry of Transportation crews worked to opened the road briefly on Monday for single-lane alternating traffic.
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter


text:
» Show All 1 2 3 4 5 ... 18» Next»
Davidson, Phoebe nee Joseph
Ref: 1605
Status: Located
Falmouth Jewish Cemetery, Cornwall, 1. England, UK
Notes: Opened around 1780 and closed 1913.
For more information see The Lost Jews of Cornwall by Keith Pearce and Dr Helen Fry [Eds.] ISBN 1900178273. There is a complete survey of the Falmouth and Penzance Jewish cemeteries, with headstone transcriptions and biographical details.
If you have any photos you would like to donate to CemeteryScribes please Contact Us THANK YOU!!


text:
Travel & Landscape Photography from 100 countries around the world
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
17 / 81
Finland - Finland - Helsinki - Helsingfors - The Tuomiokirkko (L
HelsinkiFinlandFinnishSuomiRepublic of FinlandFinskoNordicScandinaviaScandinavian PeninsulaNordic countryNorthern EuropeEurope


text:
International Support to Security Sector Reform in Ukraine
In 2015, the Swedish National Contact Group for Security Sector Reform (NCSSR) conducted an SSR assessment of Ukraine on behalf of the Swedish government. Building on this experience, and on the report submitted to the Swedish government, the FBA has continued to work on mapping international support to SSR in Ukraine.
This publication is a contribution to information-sharing and coordination in favour of an effective, affordable, accountable and transparent security sector in Ukraine.


text:
There are films that never lose their emotional wallop, despite how many times you've seen them. Steel Magnolias, The Color Purple, Stella Dallas and An Affair To Remember come to mind. There is no element of surprise in the viewing; in fact the memorized dialogue and outcome are part of the pleasure. But the way in which the stories are crafted pull the viewer in for the punch. Of course there are reasons to revisit a dramatic film besides an opportunity to use tissues and visine. Films can tell us an awful lot about how we lived or thought. A film is fantasy of course, but it is a reflection of a director, screenwriter or producer's viewpoint. Attitudes portrayed about gender, race, sexuality and religion are often an accurate reflection of the time. A film shot in the early 1970s will not only look very early 1970s but sound it too. Women might be referred to as "girls" or "honey," bottoms might be patted. Generally, if non-white actors appear it's to make a point. The storyline probably has nothing to do with any of these details, but the details are telling nonetheless.
You might remember the film; Kramer vs Kramer. (For those who don't; it was a cutting-edge tale of divorce and custody starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, set in New York City.) The emotional wallop of the film doesn't diminish with time. Much of what will rip you to shreds is the incredible performance of (8 year-old) Justin Henry. You'd have to be made of stone to not crumble at the raw hurt and anger on his face. Meryl Streep's eyes do most of her talking. She has perhaps twenty lines and expresses pages and pages of dialogue with her eyes. The viewer understands everything about these people and their anguish. But there is also (now) a story on the periphery of that story. The year is 1979 and times were decidedly different. The family is middle class (daddy works in advertising.) They are educated people living in a two-bedroom high-rise apartment uptown. The child attends a neighborhood school and they frequent Central Park. Sounds rather timeless, no? It's what you don't see that is so telling. The family (before they weren't one) is living comfortably on one salary. There is no car, there is no private school and there is no luxury. The child's bedroom has been hand-painted with clouds by the creatively frustrated mother. (In 1979 this was considered somewhat decadent.) However, there is no Pottery Barn kid's furniture or matching bedding and window treatment. There are some books, some toys, and later a framed photo of mommy. The chaos that ensues with mommy's departure is linked to the time period. There are no babysitters or nannies on call or even in existence. (Nannies were still for the posh or the British.) Daddy must master grocery shopping and food preparation as take-away was not ubiquitous and children did not dine out. Luckily for daddy there are no play-dates (there is only play) and there are no enrichment programs or team sports for a first-grader.
Now no one would suggest that the late 1970s were halcyon times. The demise of the marriage in question hinged on the fact that the wife felt marginalized. She left her husband and child to "find herself" (aka get some analysis and a job.) But had the marriage worked, and had she felt able to go out and get a job, their lifestyle wouldn't be that much different. There'd be an after-school babysitter no doubt. But the minimalistic consumption wouldn't alter. Sure, she might need some work clothes, but shopping wasn't a legitimate hobby in the 1970s. New appliances would've only been purchased if every attempt at repair had been exhausted. There were no strollers being sold for the same price as a moped. In short, they would have had more money and more time (not running from expenditure to expenditure) than they would today. Something to contemplate while watching the film and choking back the tears


text:
Most all woodworkers have heard of revered and costly black walnut, even if they might not have worked it. On the other hand, butternut. In fact, butternut has more renown as a nut producer than as a woodworking wood. Ever since the pioneer days, people have gathered its sweet, oily nuts with relish each fall. Early Americans also knew butternut as a dye. "Butternut jeans," homespun overalls dyed brown in the juice of butternut husks, were a common sight. And, like the hard maple, the tree was even tapped for its sweet sap, which was processed into syrup. Historically, though, carvers have always made the most use of butternut as a highly desirable wood. Its straight grain and softness translate into easy carving. For that reason, many intricately carved church altars turn out to be butternut.
Wood Identification
Butternut (Juglans cinerea), alsoknown as white walnut and oil nut, grows in a northern range from southern New Brunswick in Canada to the North Carolina mountains and west to eastern Minnesota. The tree never appears in stands, but occurs sparsely in rich, moist bottomland soils. A medium-sized tree, butternut generally grows 30-50' in height and to a trunk diameter of 1-3'. But in prime forest conditions, it can reach 80-100' and diameters of 4', For instance, the largest butternut on the National Register of Big Trees stands 88' tall. At a distant glance, butternut resembles black walnut in shape, although it never grows as tall and tends to spread more. And the bark has a gray color instead of the dark brown of black walnut. The alternate, frondlike leaves are 15-30" long and have as many as 17 pointed leaflets, that on the underside, are sticky to the touch. Butternut trees produce oblong nuts with thick, leathery husks and sweet, oily kernels that squirrels love. The nuts drop simultaneously with the leaves in the the fall. Butternut's coarse, straight grained wood features a light tan color and a beautiful luster. At 27 pounds per cubic foot air-dried, butternut weighs less than black walnut. It's also softer, less durable, and not as strong. In stability, the two are equal.
Uses in woodworking
Butternut often becomes carved furniture and mantelpieces, as well as relief, figure, and sculptural carvings. Stained, it imitates walnut in furniture and paneling. Where it's plentiful, the wood becomes cabinets, molding, boxes, and crates. Even wormy butternut, which turns up on occasion, may prove worthy for use in certain projects, such as relief carvings or boxes.
Because today few woodworkers other than carvers demand butternut, it may be difficult to obtain except at large hardwood lumber dealers located within its range. But specialty suppliers catering to turners and carvers frequently offer butternut blanks. When you do find butternut stock, the boards usually won't run extra wide or long due to the lack of large, clear logs. This factor also contributes to butternut's relatively high cost-about $3 per board foot for select and better. Butternut veneer or plywood generally isn't available at retail because it is only made for the architectural trade. Butternut wood sometimes turns out to be wormy, the work of powder-post beetles and their larvae. Such damaged wood can be used for attractive projects, as long as the varmints aren't still working! Kiln-drying usually solves any potential problems, and a thoroughly applied, tough finish guarantee's any survivors' demise, but it pays to closely observe all wormy wood for pests before buying.
Machining methods
Butternut works more easily than black walnut with hand and power tools because the wood ranks lower in all strength properties than its cousin. That's a plus, but also a caution. Butternut's softness makes it more susceptible to nicks and dents as you work the wood. And there's more to keep in mind:
- Although black walnut dust can irritate the eyes, butternut doesn't have that tendency. But as with all woods -especially hardwoods-wear a dust mask when doing fine sanding.
- The wood's coarse grain requires care when jointing or planing to avoid tearout. Make several shallow cuts to remove wood in stead of one deep one.
- Attach a backing board to the miter fence to act as a chip breaker when crosscutting.
- Butternut, due to its softness, shouldn't burn when routed, but shallow passes eliminate any possible tearout or chipping.
- You won't have any problem gluing butternut-its coarse texture draws in adhesives, ensuring a strong bond.
- Butternut accepts all types of stains (you can even stain it to pass for black walnut) without filling first. But the rich tan wood may look best with a more natural clear finish.
- Although oil finishes prove popular on butternut carvings, you can improve the wood's natural luster by first burnishing it (rubbing the wood with the back of a spoon, gouge, or glass bottle to compact the surface of the fibers for more sheen).
Carving comments
Butternut is a favorite of relief carvers because it takes fine details and finishes to a beautiful luster. But to avoid warp on large works, edge-join two or three pieces rather than use a single board. Also, keep these other tips in mind:
- In a relief carving, carve the sapwood side of the board to reduce any tendency for it to warp or cup. Look at the growth rings visible in the end to locate the sapwood side. The larger rings will be on what was the outside of the tree.
- Be cautious when taking deep cuts along the straight grain as the wood may pop or tear out.
Turning tricks
The coarse grain of butternut, and its softness, requires sharp tools. For best results, turn butternut at a lathe speed of 800-1,000 rpm.
Shop-Tested Techniques
Any exceptions, and special tips pertaining to this issue's featured wood species, appear under headings elsewhere on this page.
- For stability in use, always work wood with a maximum moisture content of 8 percent.
- Feed straight-grained wood into planer knives at no angle. To avoid tearing, feed wood with figured or twisted grain at a slight angle (about 15°), and take shallow cuts of about 1⁄32 ".
- For clean cuts, rip with a rip-profile blade that has 24-32 teeth. For crosscutting, use a blade with about 40 teeth.
- Avoid drilling with twist drills. They tend to wander and cause breakout. Use a backing board under the workpiece.
- Drill pilot holes for screws.
- Rout with sharp, preferably carbide-tipped, bits and take shallow passes to avoid burning.
- Carving a soft hardwood like butternut means fairly steep gouge bevels-greater than 20°.


text:
Originally published in Bloomberg View
Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman and third baseman Alex Rodriguez have apparently put their whole "shut the fuck up" episode behind them. The Yankees and A-Rod, we're told, are now back "on the same page."
Except, of course, they're not.
A-Rod wants to make sure he gets every penny he's owed—a total of $114 million—before his contract expires in 2017. The Yankees want to avoid paying him, either by slowing his return from a hip injury this season, so that an insurance company will be forced to pick up the bulk of his contract, or by finding a way to void his contract if he's suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs in the Biogenesis scandal. (In other news, the Yankees have just drawn up a new contract for minor-league outfielder Fernando Martinez, whose name can be found on the same list of ballplayers who allegedly bought banned substances from the anti-aging clinic in South Florida.)
The Yankees seem to have forgotten that they agreed to re-sign a then-32-year-old Rodriguez to a 10-year, $275-million deal after the 2007 season. They're acting instead like the unfortunate victims of some unforeseen catastrophe, wondering out loud what A-Rod could possibly do to earn his huge salary. "It's a big contract," said Hal Steinbrenner, who helped negotiate it. "We all hope he's going to act like a Yankee and do the best to live up to it."
But it's the Yankees, Hal, who aren't acting like Yankees. This has made for quite an unseemly spectacle: the mighty Yankee Empire reduced to two-bit scheming to work the edges of a contract and recover money via what looks an awful lot like an insurance scam.
The A-Rod deal wasn't some sort of crazy experiment gone bad. It was the Yankees' economic model in its purest form: secure the best talent today by wildly overpaying for their services tomorrow. This is what the Yankees have been doing pretty much since the birth of free agency, when they began signing superstars like Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson and Dave Winfield to long-term deals.
Mark Teixeira, Derek Jeter, C.C. Sabathia—all are either making more money than they're worth or soon will be. Teixeira has been in gradual decline since signing his eight-year, $180-million deal in 2008, and won't play another game in 2013. Sabathia started showing signs of age last year; he is signed through 2017, when he'll be 35. Jeter, who just turned 39—happy birthday, Jeet!—is making $17 million this season. He is said to be pleased with the pace of his recovery from a broken ankle that has sidelined him since spring training. But he still can't run the bases.
How is A-Rod any different? Aside from the size of his contract—which the Yankees willingly entered into—he's just another aging pinstriped superstar on the unproductive back end of his career in the Bronx. The Yankees know how the megadeal works; they practically invented it. But after having eagerly dropped a match on a big pile of money, as is their custom, they're now running around pitifully trying to blow out the fire. Stop embarrassing yourselves, Yankees. You bought A-Rod. Broken or not, he's yours.
Jonathan Mahler is a Bloomberg View columnist. Follow him on Twitter.


text:
NFL owners, players getting it wrong
NEW YORK - Although his Park Avenue office is as quiet as an empty stadium, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sits atop a seething volcano of fans who will erupt if training camps do not open in July.
Fans care nothing about the details of the labor dispute that threatens to keep stadiums empty into September and perhaps beyond: There have been no serious negotiations since March 11; the recent court hearing might - weeks from now - result in a decision that will restart negotiations.
Even if, however, you think football is one of America's dispensable frills, the NFL's agony is a fascinating illustration of how things can spin out of control.
Explaining why the NFL - a hugely popular $9.3 billion enterprise - needs fixing, Goodell sounds paradoxical: Costs are growing faster than revenues, stadiums are the biggest costs, and they must be made better because most fans never enter them.
Most NFL fans have never been to a game; more than 90 percent never or rarely go.
They watch at home on wide-screen televisions, with super-slow-motion replays and close-ups of linebackers' collisions and cheerleaders' cleavages.
The television experience will be diminished, Goodell says, if the stadiums are not full. And the parlous condition of state and municipal budgets means taxpayers are resisting building them.
Under the previous agreement, owners took $1.3 billion of league revenues off the top before players got about 65 percent of the remainder.
This time, owners began by demanding that another $1 billion of revenues - subsequently reduced to less than $400 million - be set aside for stadiums and other investments, before the players get their portion.
But players, whose careers average about six years, according to the league, resist sacrificing earnings so the league can make long-term investments
Furthermore, because fans resent having to buy tickets for two home preseason games, the owners want to reduce those games from four to two, and lengthen the regular season from 16 to 18.
Players say this means more work and risk of injury for less pay.
Owners say players would get a smaller slice but of a bigger pie.
But the players' union responded to the owners' lockout of its members by dissolving itself ("decertification").
This created a situation in which all players would be free agents - independent contractors.
So the players, whose pay and benefits increased 85 percent over the last 10 years, now might threaten to unravel the draft, team salary caps and other arrangements by which a sports league contrives to produce competitive balance.
Because 43 percent of NFL revenue comes from national television contracts and is shared equally among the 32 teams, and almost 80 percent of all NFL revenues are shared in some way, teams in smaller markets can prosper: The teams in the last two Super Bowls were from Pittsburgh, Green Bay, New Orleans and Indianapolis.
The combination of revenue sharing and the salary cap means it takes a perverse genius for a team to lose money.
The owners, by decrying the current system, desperately want the union resurrected so they can bargain with it to preserve most of the system.
Currently, the owners propose a salary cap of $141 million per team, meaning $4.51 billion in league-wide compensation.
The players want $151 million, meaning $4.83 billion.
It is ludicrous to risk even part of a season over so little, and both sides probably would, if they could, erase the last three months of staking out improvident positions and agree to extend the current system.
Any labor dispute is a test of the two sides' pain thresholds.
The owners think the players' serious pain will begin when they miss the first of their 17 paychecks.
The owners may, however, be forgetting a pertinent fact: NFL players - pain is part of their job description - are NFL players because they are intensely competitive and hate to lose at anything.
After decades in which economic sectors much larger and more essential than the NFL - e.g., the steel and automotive industries -- were laid low by mismanaged labor relations, and as the role and rights of organized labor are being hotly debated, the NFL's current crackup suggests that both sides are slow learners.
George Will's email address is email@example.com.


text:
Oregon City Decks
Oregon City
Oregon City Decks is a deck building company located in Oregon City. We build decks in all shapes and sizes for both homes and businesses. Our unique value proposition is that we are reliable, experienced deck builders who always put our customers first. Our mission is to provide quality decks that our customers can enjoy for years to come. Our vision is to be the best deck builder in Oregon City, and to continue to grow our business by putting our customers first.
Business Name:
Oregon City Decks
19700 s Fischers mill roadOregon City Oregon 97045United States
About Oregon City
Oregon City is the county seat of Clackamas County, Oregon, United States, located on the Willamette River near the southern limits of the Portland metropolitan area. As of the 2020 census, the city population was 37,572. Established in 1829 by the Hudson's Bay Company, in 1844 it became the first U.S. city west of the Rocky Mountains to be incorporated. == History == Known in recent decades as the site of several large paper mills on the Willamette River, the city played a significant role in the early history of the Oregon Country. It was established by Hudson's Bay Company's Dr.
Neighborhoods in Oregon City, Oregon
Ardenwald, Arnold Creek, Barclay Hills, Barrington Heights, Blue Heron, Bolton, Bryant, Canemah, Canemah Neighborhood Children's Park, Caufield, Errol Heights, Fair Oaks, First Addition, Gaffney Lane, Hallinan
Things to do in Oregon City, Oregon
Our Newest Profiles


text:
Transformation. Integration. Collaboration. These three buzz words are changing the face of health and human services. Earlier this year, Washington State, home to some of the most innovative and transformational efforts in the nation, released their health care innovation plan. The plan identifies three core strategies to improve health and healthcare while lowering costs:
- Improve how we pay for services;
- Ensure health care focuses on the whole person; and
- Build healthier communities through a collaborative regional approach known as Accountable Communities of Health (ACH).
In support of this third strategy, King County is convening a cross-sector, community-based partnership structure to address our significant health, social and racial disparities. Based on the premise that no single sector or organization can create lasting change in health and health care alone, ACH will provide the framework for coordination between clinical, community, and government partners. Seattle's Human Services Department (HSD) is a key partner in ACH planning efforts which will begin this summer in preparation for a 2015 launch.
The Accountable Communities of Health is just one of the innovative planning efforts taking place in King County. The King County Health and Human Services Transformation Plan charts a five year course to affect real change, both at the community and individual levels.
To impact community level change, one-time funding is now available to support system, policy and practice change efforts that decrease inequity in the areas where health, housing, and economic opportunity intersect. Later this fall, the county in partnership with the Seattle Foundation will release multi-year investments targeted to specific geographic communities.
One strategy to impact individual level change is to improve health and social outcomes for adults with complex health and social challenges. The Medicaid-Medicare Duals Demonstration Project is an opportunity where organizations and payers are collaborating to improve outcomes for those with complex needs. Aging and Disability Services along with King County Department of Community and Human Services and Public Health – Seattle & King County are working side by side with managed care organizations (MCOs) to design a new coordinated service delivery system. The two MCOs, Regence and UnitedHealth, will assume all risk for the medical and behavioral health and long-term care of 36,000 dual-eligibles beginning April 2015. ADS will continue to provide quality case management for the MCOs while embracing their new role in achieving better health outcomes.
Transformation. Integration. Collaboration. Washington, King County, and HSD will use these three concepts to change the face of health and human services resulting in better health and better care at a lower cost.


text:
Story highlights
NEW: Authorities report several violent incidents overnight, including shootings
Tens of thousands of protesters have gathered in central Bangkok
They have occupied major intersections in the Thai capital and marched on ministries
The protesters are demanding that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra step down
Violence flared overnight in Bangkok amid anti-government demonstrations intended to drive Thailand's Prime Minister out of office.
Tens of thousands of protesters have disrupted traffic at major intersections and marched on government offices in Thailand's large and hectic capital city this week.
The protests, dubbed "Bangkok shutdown," had begun Monday without serious incident. But on Tuesday night, two people were shot and wounded, an explosive device was thrown at an opposition leader's house, buses were set alight and police officers were attacked, according to authorities.
The protesters say they want Thailand's political system overhauled instead of new elections scheduled for next month. They're demanding that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's government be replaced with an unelected "people's council."
Their numbers dropped from a peak of as many as 170,000 on Monday evening to about 60,000 on Tuesday evening, said Lt. Gen. Paradon Pattanathabut, Thailand's security chief. He said roughly 10,000 demonstrators had stayed out on the streets overnight as others returned to their homes in the Bangkok area.
Protest leaders disagree with the government's estimates of their numbers. They say they had more than one million people on the streets on Tuesday night.
Intersections occupied
Since Monday, groups of demonstrators have occupied seven main intersections in Bangkok and marched on several government buildings, including the labor, commerce and foreign ministries.
The protests have caused some disruption in central Bangkok, but large areas of the sprawling capital city so far remain unaffected. Authorities have deployed about 20,000 security personnel to keep watch throughout the city.
The rallies are orchestrated by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protest group, led by Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister for the opposition Democrat Party.
The government has offered talks with protesters and other concerned parties to discuss a way out of the impasse and the possibility of postponing the election. But Suthep's group has rejected the offer.
READ: Bangkok protests: Updated info for tourists
Unrest overnight
With Thailand still scarred by deadly civil unrest in 2010, police and demonstrators have both pledged not to resort to violence. But amid the tense atmosphere in parts of Bangkok, pockets of unrest sparked on Tuesday night.
An explosive device was thrown at the house of opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Paradon said. Abhisit, the leader of the Democrat Party, was not in the house at the time and nobody was wounded by the blast, Paradon said.
The case is under investigation and it is not certain at this point whether the attack was politically motivated, he said.
Abhisit, a former prime minister, has denied being a member of the PDRC but has appeared on stage and among the crowds at some of their demonstrations.
At Pathumwan, one of the major occupied intersections, two protesters were shot and wounded by unidentified attackers, Paradon said. One of the protesters suffered serious, but not life-threatening, injuries, he said. The other had minor injuries.
In the Lumpini Park area, protesters' guards attacked four police officers who were gathering intelligence, police said. One of the officers remains in the hospital after the assault.
At Nang Lerk intersection, where scores of people have been protesting for months, two buses were set on fire, Paradon said.
READ: What's behind Bangkok's looming 'shutdown'?
Dispute over elections
Rights groups, the United Nations and the United States have called on Thai authorities and anti-government protesters to respect human rights and avoid violence during the mass demonstrations.
Since demonstrations against Yingluck's government began in November, eight people have died and 470 have been wounded, authorities said.
In a bid to cool tensions, Yingluck dissolved the nation's parliament last month and called for new elections to be held on February 2.
But the move has done little to appease protesters. They have called on the Prime Minister to step down from her caretaker position and be replaced by an unelected "people's council," which would see through electoral and political reforms.
The national Election Commission has urged the government to postpone elections amid the continuing unrest. Yingluck offered to meet with protest leaders and election commission officials Wednesday to discuss whether to delay the vote, her office said.
But Akanat Prompan, a PDRC spokesman, said Yingluck's offer of talks wasn't an answer to the problems.
The protesters want to see changes to Thailand's political system enacted before elections take place, he said, and the demonstrations will continue until they achieve that goal.
Travel warnings
Dozens of countries have issued travel advisories amid fears the tensions could erupt into violence.
The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok has urged U.S. citizens to avoid large gatherings in the city and to ensure they have a stock of cash and essential items in case the situation deteriorates.
"While protests have been generally peaceful over the last two months, some have resulted in injury and death," its online warning said. "Even demonstrations that are meant to be peaceful can turn confrontational, and can escalate into violence without warning."
The protest group has said that it will allow ambulances to pass along the roads it blocks, and that it will not block access to airports and public transportation.
The U.S. government supports "a democratic process to resolve the ongoing political tensions in Thailand," Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Monday.
"We also continue to urge all sides to refrain from violence, exercise restraint and respect the rule of law," she said at a regular news briefing. "And we do, I would note, applaud the restraint shown thus far by government authorities in this regard."
Ambitious goal
Protest leaders have said they want to rid Thailand of the influence of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the older brother of Yingluck.
That's an ambitious goal in a country where every election since 2001 has been won by parties affiliated with Thaksin, a billionaire who built his political success on populist policies that appealed to Thailand's rural heartland.
Thaksin was ousted in a military coup in 2006 and has spent most of the time since then in exile overseas. If he returns, he risks a two-year prison sentence on a corruption conviction, which he says was politically motivated.
The recent protests in Bangkok were prompted by a botched attempt by Yingluck's government to pass an amnesty bill that would have opened the door for her brother's return.
That move added fuel for critics who accuse her of being nothing more than her brother's puppet, an allegation she has repeatedly denied.
Opposition to Thaksin and Yingluck is strongest among the urban elites and middle class, particularly in Bangkok.
Thaksin's traditional support comes from the populous rural areas of north and northeast Thailand.
His supporters, known as "red shirts," support the holding of elections on February 2.
READ: Opinion: Prognosis for divided Thailand bleak, but why?
READ: Thailand anti-government demonstrators stay out on Bangkok streets
READ: CNN Money: Thailand protests highlight risks in Asia
Kocha Olarn and Saima Mohsin reported from Bangkok, and Jethro Mullen reported and wrote from Hong Kong.


text:
Verfügbarkeiten werden gesucht.
This former school is more than a hotel: dedicated to preserving biodiversity, it is also a convalescent home for injured animals.
The hotel works closely with the local animal rescue center and provides refuge on its large estate and rehabilitation in peace and safety. Too numerous to count are the pheasants, squirrels and wild ducks that have stayed here. And each year, a couple of swans return to this beautiful destination and sing their ode to freedom. Proudly, the largely local personnel keeps a careful watch over them.


text:
Volunteer at Tucson Neuroscience Research
How Clinical Trials Work
Clinical trials are an important part of making sure the drugs and medical treatments we all use are safe and effective. We conduct trials to predict how well a medication or therapy will perform in the general population when used to treat a certain condition.
Every FDA approved medication or treatment available today has at some time been tested in a clinical trial. Sometimes medications or treatments already being used may be tested again for treating additional illnesses.
Our clinical trials measure the safety and effectiveness of a proposed medication or treatment, compared to a placebo or to existing therapies. While most of our trials compare single medications, others compare combinations of different medications, or various dosage levels.
Depending on the stage of a drug or treatment's development, trials usually start as small pilot studies. As safety and effectiveness data are established, trials can be much larger, sometimes involving many thousands of volunteers in different locations, or sites.
All clinical trials involve three steps:
Step 1 — Recruiting volunteers
Our first job is to recruit volunteers to join a study and to retain them for the entire length of the trial (usually several months, but sometimes longer). We carefully screen all volunteers to make sure they are generally healthy, and/or have the characteristics desired by the study sponsor.
Step 2 — Conducting the trial
Each trial is conducted according to precise methods called protocols, as determined by the trial's sponsor (usually a drug company). Since many trials involve conducting studies in different sites at the same time, a protocol insures that the studies are all performed in the same way at each site. If one site cannot recruit enough trial volunteers, the sponsor may engage multiple sites.
Step 3 — Collecting information
We collect detailed medical information on the changes volunteers experience while using a medication or treatment. We verify the information for accuracy and then report it to the trial Sponsor. We report only medical information (blood pressure, lab values, etc.) for each volunteer, not their personal information (name, address, etc.). Once the sponsor has gathered the trial information from all sites, the information is combined and carefully analyzed before being submitted to the FDA for review and approval. If approved by the FDA, the drug or therapy may be released for general use.
We carefully measure the safety of investigational medications or treatments. By regularly and thoroughly monitoring study participants, we keep a very close watch for any unusual or unexpected side effects that may arise during the trial.
Any side effects, even minor ones, are recorded and included in the Sponsor's analysis. When a treatment is approved by the FDA, all observed side effects are listed in the package insert (patient information sheet) that is included with the treatment. You receive this information each time you purchase a prescription medication at your pharmacy.
Benefits of Volunteering
Every person is unique and what motivates you or any individual to volunteer for a clinical trial is also unique. We have summarized some of the more common benefits that many of our participants have shared with us.
- Personal attention from our experienced staff of medical professionals
- Education regarding your condition and the available treatment options
- A thorough physical examination, often including lab work, EKG, ultrasounds, comprehensive screenings, and other tests, all at no cost
- Immediate test results whenever possible
- All prescribed medications provided at no cost during your time in the study
- Access to treatment and medication currently unavailable to the general public
- Open sharing of all lab work and test results with your primary care physician
- Compensation for time and travel
- Your participation will help make new medication and treatment options available to others
- Possible improvement in the symptoms related to your medical condition


text:
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday will use executive authority to designate the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks in southern New Mexico a national monument, according to the White House.
The White House projects that the designation could spur $7.4 million new economic activity in the area around the monument, and comes as the Obama administration tries to draw attention this week to investing in the USA.
"By establishing the monument, the president will permanently protect more than 496,000 acres to preserve the prehistoric, historic and scientific values of the area for the benefit of all Americans," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
In addition to the new national monument designation — which Obama will sign at an event at the Department of Interior on Wednesday — the president is scheduled to meet with business leaders at the White House on Tuesday and travel to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., to trumpet U.S. tourism just ahead of the summer travel season.
Earlier this year, Obama made clear during his State of the Union Address that he would use executive authority "to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations." In March, Obama designated a 1,665-acre nature preserve on California's coast, Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands, as a national monument.
The tall, jagged Organ Mountains offer a majestic backdrop to Las Cruces, N.M., one of the state's fastest growing areas.
Ahead of Obama's designation, dueling legislation was proposed in the House and Senate to create a national monument.
Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., proposed the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act to protect 54,800 acres in and near the Organs, east of Las Cruces. New Mexico Senate Democrats Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, proposed to set aside 498,815 acres including much the Organs and other undeveloped areas of the county.
Some ranchers in the area opposed the proposal pitched by Udall and Heinrich, because they say the monument would swallow up too much land and would hurt their business.


text:
MARRESE v. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHO. SURGEONS(1985)
After being denied membership in respondent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, petitioner orthopaedic surgeons each filed an action in an Illinois Circuit Court, alleging that the denial of membership violated their associational rights under Illinois common law. After the Illinois Appellate Court ultimately held that the complaint in one action failed to state a cause of action, the Circuit Court then dismissed the other complaint. Subsequently, petitioners filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that the denial of membership constituted a boycott in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust claim because the state actions concerned the same facts and were dismissed with prejudice. The District Court denied the motion, holding, in reliance on federal law, that the state judgments did not bar the Sherman Act claim. Thereafter, the District Court held respondent in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a discovery order as to its membership application files. Respondent then appealed from the contempt order, and, while this appeal was pending, the District Court certified its denial of the motion to dismiss for immediate appeal. The Court of Appeals authorized an interlocutory appeal and ordered it consolidated with the appeal from the contempt order. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of federal law, claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust action, and reversed the contempt order because the discovery order was invalid.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 387. BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Michael T. Sawyier argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Stephen B. Cohen, George C. Pontikes, and John J. Casey, Jr.
Charles W. Murdock, Deputy Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for the State of Illinois et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois, and Robert E. Davy, Thomas J. DeMay, and James N. O'Hara, Assistant Attorneys General, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, and Frank A. Baldwin, Deputy Attorney General, Bronson C. La Follette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Michael L. Zaleski, Assistant Attorney General. [470 U.S. 373, 375]
D. Kendall Griffith argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas M. Crisham, Robert E. Nord, and Pamela S. Hollis.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent lawsuit involving federal antitrust claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held as a matter of federal law that the earlier state court judgments barred the federal antitrust suit. 726 F.2d 1150 (1984). Under 28 U.S.C. 1738, a federal court generally is required to consider first the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered to determine its preclusive effect. Because the lower courts did not consider state preclusion law in this case, we reverse and remand.
Petitioners are board-certified orthopaedic surgeons who applied for membership in respondent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (Academy). Respondent denied the membership applications without providing a hearing or a statement of reasons. In November 1976, petitioner Dr. Treister filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, alleging that the denial of membership in the Academy violated associational rights protected by Illinois common law. Petitioner Dr. Marrese separately filed a similar action in state court. Neither petitioner alleged a violation of state antitrust law in his state court action; nor did either petitioner contemporaneously file a federal antitrust suit. The Illinois Appellate Court ultimately held that Dr. Treister's complaint failed to state a cause of action, Treister v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 78 Ill. App. 3d 746, 396 N. E. 2d 1225 (1979), and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 79 Ill. 2d 630 (1980). After the Appellate Court ruled against Dr. Treister, the Circuit Court dismissed Dr. Marrese's complaint. [470 U.S. 373, 376]
In March 1980, petitioners filed a federal antitrust suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on the same events underlying their unsuccessful state court actions. As amended, the complaint alleged that respondent Academy possesses monopoly power, that petitioners were denied membership in order to discourage competition, and that their exclusion constituted a boycott in violation of 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. App. 8, 26-30, 33. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust claim because the earlier state court actions concerned the same facts and were dismissed with prejudice. 1 In denying this motion, the District Court reasoned that state courts lack jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims, and therefore a state court judgment cannot have claim preclusive effect in a subsequent federal antitrust suit. 496 F. Supp. 236, 238-239 (1980), on reconsideration, 524 F. Supp. 389 (1981). Discovery began and respondent refused to allow petitioners access to certain files relating to membership applications. After respondent persisted in this refusal despite a discovery order, the District Court held respondent in criminal contempt. App. to Pet. for Cert. N-1.
The judgment of contempt was reversed by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals in an opinion holding that the District Judge had abused his discretion by authorizing discovery of the membership files and also suggesting that the federal action was barred by claim preclusion and that the antitrust claims were groundless. 692 F.2d 1083 (1982). This opinion was vacated by an en banc vote, and the original panel issued a narrower opinion that did not discuss claim preclusion. [470 U.S. 373, 377] 706 F.2d 1488 (1983). The Court of Appeals then vacated the second opinion and ordered rehearing en banc. In a divided vote, the Court of Appeals held that claim preclusion barred the federal antitrust suit and reversed the contempt order because the discovery order was invalid. 726 F.2d 1150 (1984).
On the claim preclusion issue, no opinion commanded the votes of a majority of the Court of Appeals. A plurality opinion concluded that a state court judgment bars the subsequent filing of a federal antitrust claim if the plaintiff could have brought a state antitrust claim under a state statute "materially identical" to the Sherman Act. Id., at 1153. The plurality examined the Illinois Antitrust Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 60-3(2) (1981), and found that it is sufficiently similar to the Sherman Act to bar petitioners' federal antitrust claims in the instant case. Id., at 1155-1156. An opinion concurring in part concluded that res judicata required petitioners to bring their "entire cause of action within a reasonable period of time." Id., at 1166 (Flaum, J.). To avoid preclusion of their federal antitrust claim, petitioners should have either filed concurrent state and federal actions or brought their state claims in federal court pendent to their Sherman Act claim. Ibid.
Five judges also concluded that the discovery order was invalid and therefore the contempt judgment should be reversed. A plurality opinion first observed that the discovery order was invalid because the District Court should have dismissed the suit on claim preclusion grounds before the discovery order was entered. Id., at 1158. Alternatively, the order constituted an abuse of discretion because it did not adequately prevent petitioners from misusing the discovery process. Id., at 1158-1162. Three judges joined the entire discussion concerning the discovery order. A fourth judge did not believe that claim preclusion applied, but he agreed that the discovery order constituted an abuse of discretion. Id., at 1162 (Eschbach, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Finally, the fifth judge observed that it was sufficient [470 U.S. 373, 378] to hold that the complaint should have been dismissed on claim preclusion grounds; he added, however, that if he thought it necessary he would join the portion of the plurality opinion holding the discovery order invalid. Id., at 1162 (Bauer, J., concurring).
We granted certiorari limited to the question whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that claim preclusion requires dismissal of the federal antitrust action, 467 U.S. 1258 (1984), and we now reverse.
Before addressing the merits of the decision below, we first examine whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the District Court's denial of the motion to dismiss. Although the parties did not raise the jurisdictional issue before this Court, we address it to assure that the claim preclusion issue is properly before us. See, e. g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 197 (1956). In the present case, the District Court initially refused to certify its denial of the motion to dismiss for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The District Court subsequently held respondent in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a discovery order. Respondent then appealed from the judgment of criminal contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. See Bray v. United States, 423 U.S. 73 (1975) (per curiam). While the appeal from the contempt judgment was pending, the District Court amended the earlier denial of the motion to dismiss in order to certify it for immediate appeal. App. to Pet. for Cert. I-1. The Court of Appeals authorized interlocutory appeal pursuant to 1292(b), and ordered proceedings consolidated with the appeal from the contempt order. 726 F.2d, at 1152; App. to Pet. for Cert. J-1.
Petitioners argued below that because the appeal from the contempt order was pending, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to amend its order denying the motion to dismiss to [470 U.S. 373, 379] allow interlocutory appeal. In general, filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). This proposition, however, does not imply that an appeal from a judgment of criminal contempt based on noncompliance with a discovery order transfers jurisdiction over the entire case to the court of appeals. Criminal contempt judgments are immediately appealable pursuant to 1291 because they result from "`a separate and independent proceeding . . . to vindicate the authority of the court'" and are "`not a part of the original cause.'" Bray, supra, at 75, quoting Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 445 , 451 (1911).
Thus, prior to certification of the claim preclusion issue pursuant to 1292(b), the contempt judgment was the only matter before the Court of Appeals. See 706 F.2d, at 1497-1498; 692 F.2d, at 1096. The District Court's amendment of its initial denial of the motion to dismiss did not interfere with but instead facilitated review of the pending appeal from the contempt order. We agree with the Court of Appeals, 726 F.2d, at 1152, that the pendency of the appeal from the contempt judgment did not prevent the District Court from certifying the denial of the motion to dismiss for immediate appeal under 1292(b). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals properly exercised jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals, and we have jurisdiction to review that court's decision with respect to dismissal of the antitrust claim.
The issue presented by this case is whether a state court judgment may have preclusive effect on a federal antitrust claim that could not have been raised in the state proceeding. Although federal antitrust claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, see, e. g., General Investment [470 U.S. 373, 380] Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 286 -288 (1922), the Court of Appeals ruled that the dismissal of petitioners' complaints in state court barred them from bringing a claim based on the same facts under the Sherman Act. The Court of Appeals erred by suggesting that in these circumstances a federal court should determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment without regard to the law of the State in which judgment was rendered.
The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit generally is determined by the full faith and credit statute, which provides that state judicial proceedings "shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States . . . as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken." 28 U.S.C. 1738. This statute directs a federal court to refer to the preclusion law of the State in which judgment was rendered. "It has long been established that 1738 does not allow federal courts to employ their own rules of res judicata in determining the effect of state judgments. Rather, it goes beyond the common law and commands a federal court to accept the rules chosen by the State from which the judgment is taken." Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481 -482 (1982); see also Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980). Section 1738 embodies concerns of comity and federalism that allow the States to determine, subject to the requirements of the statute and the Due Process Clause, the preclusive effect of judgments in their own courts. See Kremer, supra, at 478, 481-483. Cf. Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343, 349 (1942) (discussing preclusive effect of state judgment in proceedings in another State).
The fact that petitioners' antitrust claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts does not necessarily make 1738 inapplicable to this case. Our decisions indicate that a state court judgment may in some circumstances have preclusive effect in a subsequent action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Without discussing 1738, [470 U.S. 373, 381] this Court has held that the issue preclusive effect of a state court judgment barred a subsequent patent suit that could not have been brought in state court. Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S. 388 (1929). Moreover, Kremer held that 1738 applies to a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., although the Court expressly declined to decide whether Title VII claims can be brought only in federal courts. 456 U.S., at 479 , n. 20. Kremer implies that absent an exception to 1738, state law determines at least the issue preclusive effect of a prior state judgment in a subsequent action involving a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
More generally, Kremer indicates that 1738 requires a federal court to look first to state preclusion law in determining the preclusive effects of a state court judgment. Cf. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 314 , and n. 8 (1983); Smith, Full Faith and Credit and Section 1983; A Reappraisal, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 59, 110-111 (1984). The Court's analysis in Kremer began with the finding that state law would in fact bar relitigation of the discrimination issue decided in the earlier state proceedings. 456 U.S., at 466 -467. That finding implied that the plaintiff could not relitigate the same issue in federal court unless some exception to 1738 applied. Ibid. Kremer observed that "an exception to 1738 will not be recognized unless a later statute contains an express or implied repeal." Id., at 468; see also Allen v. McCurry, supra, at 99. Title VII does not expressly repeal 1738, and the Court concluded that the statutory provisions and legislative history do not support a finding of implied repeal. 456 U.S., at 476 . We conclude that the basic approach adopted in Kremer applies in a lawsuit involving a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
To be sure, a state court will not have occasion to address the specific question whether a state judgment has issue or claim preclusive effect in a later action that can be brought [470 U.S. 373, 382] only in federal court. Nevertheless, a federal court may rely in the first instance on state preclusion principles to determine the extent to which an earlier state judgment bars subsequent litigation. Cf. FDIC v. Eckhardt, 691 F.2d 245, 247-248 (CA6 1982) (applying state law to determine preclusive effect on claim within concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts). Kremer illustrates that a federal court can apply state rules of issue preclusion to determine if a matter actually litigated in state court may be relitigated in a subsequent federal proceeding. See 456 U.S., at 467 .
With respect to matters that were not decided in the state proceedings, we note that claim preclusion generally does not apply where "[t]he plaintiff was unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy because of the limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts . . . ." Restatement (Second) of Judgments 26(1)(c) (1982). If state preclusion law includes this requirement of prior jurisdictional competency, which is generally true, a state judgment will not have claim preclusive effect on a cause of action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Even in the event that a party asserting the affirmative defense of claim preclusion can show that state preclusion rules in some circumstances bar a claim outside the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the initial judgment, the federal court should first consider whether application of the state rules would bar the particular federal claim. 2 [470 U.S. 373, 383]
Reference to state preclusion law may make it unnecessary to determine if the federal court, as an exception to 1738, should refuse to give preclusive effect to a state court judgment. The issue whether there is an exception to 1738 arises only if state law indicates that litigation of a particular claim or issue should be barred in the subsequent federal proceeding. To the extent that state preclusion law indicates that a judgment normally does not have claim preclusive effect as to matters that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, lower courts and commentators have correctly concluded that a state court judgment does not bar a subsequent federal antitrust claim. See 726 F.2d, at 1174 (Cudahy, J., dissenting) (citing cases); 692 F.2d, at 1099 (Stewart, J., dissenting); Restatement, supra, 25(1), Comment e; id., 26(1)(c), Illustration 2; 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 4470, pp. 687-688 (1981). Unless application of Illinois preclusion law suggests, contrary to the usual view, that petitioners' federal antitrust claim is somehow barred, there will be no need to decide in this case if there is an exception to 1738. 3 [470 U.S. 373, 384]
The Court of Appeals did not apply the approach to 1738 that we have outlined. Both the plurality opinion, see 726 F.2d, at 1154, and an opinion concurring in part, see id., at 1163-1164 (Flaum, J.), express the view that 1738 allows a federal court to give a state court judgment greater preclusive effect than the state courts themselves would give to it. This proposition, however, was rejected by Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75 (1984), a case decided shortly after the Court of Appeals announced its decision in the instant case. In Migra, a discharged school-teacher filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court after she prevailed in state court on a contract claim involving the same underlying events. The Federal District Court dismissed the 1983 action as barred by claim preclusion. The opinion of this Court emphasized that under 1738, state law determined the preclusive effect of the state judgment. Id., at 81. Because it was unclear from the record whether the District Court's ruling was based on state preclusion law, we remanded for clarification on this point. Id., at 87. Such a remand obviously would have been unnecessary were a federal court free to give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than would the judgment-rendering State. See id., at 88 (WHITE, J., concurring).
We are unwilling to create a special exception to 1738 for federal antitrust claims that would give state court judgments greater preclusive effect than would the courts of the State rendering the judgment. Cf. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S., at 317 -318 (refusing to create special preclusion rule for 1983 claim subsequent to plaintiff's guilty plea). The plurality opinion for the Court of Appeals relied on Federated [470 U.S. 373, 385] Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981), to observe that the doctrine of claim preclusion protects defendants from repetitive lawsuits based on the same conduct, 726 F.2d, at 1152, and that there is a practical need to require plaintiffs "to litigate their claims in an economical and parsimonious fashion." Id., at 1153. We agree that these are valid and important concerns, and we note that under 1738 state issue preclusion law may promote the goals of repose and conservation of judicial resources by preventing the relitigation of certain issues in a subsequent federal proceeding. See Kremer, 456 U.S., at 485 (state judgment barred subsequent Title VII action in federal court).
If we had a single system of courts and our only concerns were efficiency and finality, it might be desirable to fashion claim preclusion rules that would require a plaintiff to bring suit initially in the forum of most general jurisdiction, thereby resolving as many issues as possible in one proceeding. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 24, Comment g (1982); C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, supra, 4407, p. 51; id., 4412, p. 93. The decision of the Court of Appeals approximates such a rule inasmuch as it encourages plaintiffs to file suit initially in federal district court and to attempt to bring any state law claims pendent to their federal antitrust claims. Whether this result would reduce the overall burden of litigation is debatable, see 726 F.2d, at 1181-1182 (Cudahy, J., dissenting); C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, supra, 4407, p. 51-52, and we decline to base our interpretation of 1738 on our opinion on this question.
More importantly, we have parallel systems of state and federal courts, and the concerns of comity reflected in 1738 generally allow States to determine the preclusive scope of their own courts' judgments. See Kremer, supra, at 481-482; Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S., at 96 ; cf. Currie, Res Judicata: The Neglected Defense, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317, 327 (1978) (state policies may seek to limit preclusive effect of state court judgment). These concerns certainly are not made less compelling because state courts lack jurisdiction [470 U.S. 373, 386] over federal antitrust claims. We therefore reject a judicially created exception to 1738 that effectively holds as a matter of federal law that a plaintiff can bring state law claims initially in state court only at the cost of forgoing subsequent federal antitrust claims. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie does not suggest a contrary conclusion. That case did not involve 1738; rather it held that "accepted principles of res judicata" determine the preclusive effect of a federal court judgment. See 452 U.S., at 401 .
In this case the Court of Appeals should have first referred to Illinois law to determine the preclusive effect of the state judgment. Only if state law indicates that a particular claim or issue would be barred, is it necessary to determine if an exception to 1738 should apply. Although for purposes of this case, we need not decide if such an exception exists for federal antitrust claims, we observe that the more general question is whether the concerns underlying a particular grant of exclusive jurisdiction justify a finding of an implied partial repeal of 1738. Resolution of this question will depend on the particular federal statute as well as the nature of the claim or issue involved in the subsequent federal action. Our previous decisions indicate that the primary consideration must be the intent of Congress. See Kremer, supra, at 470-476 (finding no congressional intent to depart from 1738 for purposes of Title VII); cf. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 138 (1979) (finding congressional intent that state judgments would not have claim preclusive effect on dischargeability issue in bankruptcy).
The decisions below did not consider Illinois preclusion law in their discussion of the claim preclusion issue. The District Court relied on federal law to conclude that the state judgments did not bar the claims under the Sherman Act. See 496 F. Supp., at 238-239. Similarly, the plurality opinion of the Court of Appeals did not discuss Illinois principles of [470 U.S. 373, 387] claim preclusion. See 726 F.2d, at 1154. Although an opinion concurring in part also concluded that petitioners' antitrust claim was barred as a matter of federal law, it did suggest that this conclusion was consistent with Illinois law. See id., at 1164 (Flaum, J.). A dissenting opinion vigorously argued that principles of Illinois claim preclusion law did not require dismissal of the federal antitrust claims. See id., at 1176-1177 (Cudahy, J.). Before this Court, the parties have continued to disagree about the content of Illinois preclusion law. We believe that this dispute is best resolved in the first instance by the District Court. Cf. Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S., at 87 .
Petitioners also urge us to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with respect to the contempt order. We specifically declined to grant certiorari on questions related to the discovery order or the subsequent contempt order, and we do not address those issues here.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] Our analysis does not necessarily suggest that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in its holding in Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co., 640 F.2d 484, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 878 (1981). The Court of Appeals there applied federal preclusion principles to conclude that a state judgment approving settlement of state antitrust claims barred a subsequent federal antitrust claim. Although our decision today indicates that the Court of Appeals should have looked in the first instance to state law to determine the preclusive effect of the state judgment, the same holding would result if application of state preclusion law suggests [470 U.S. 373, 383] that the settlement bars the subsequent federal claim and if there is no exception to 1738 in these circumstances. Cf. 640 F.2d, at 487, n. 5 (noting that state law gives preclusive effect to consent judgment). We, of course, do not address those issues here.
[ Footnote 3 ] THE CHIEF JUSTICE notes that preclusion rules bar the splitting of a cause of action between a court of limited jurisdiction and one of general jurisdiction, and suggests that state requirements of jurisdictional competency may leave unclear whether a state court action precludes a subsequent federal antitrust claim. Post, at 388-390. The rule that the judgment of a court of limited jurisdiction concludes the entire claim assumes that the plaintiff might have commenced his action in a court in the same system of courts that was competent to give full relief. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 24, Comment g (1982). Moreover, the jurisdictional competency requirement generally is understood to imply that state court litigation based on a state statute analogous to a federal statute, e. g., a state antitrust law, does not bar subsequent attempts to secure [470 U.S. 373, 384] relief in federal court if the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim. Id., 26(1)(c), Illustration 2. Although a particular State's preclusion principles conceivably could support a rule similar to that proposed by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, post, at 390-391, where state preclusion rules do not indicate that a claim is barred, we do not believe that federal courts should fashion a federal rule to preclude a claim that could not have been raised in the state proceedings.
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court's implicit conclusion that the Court of Appeals approached 28 U.S.C. 1738 too narrowly and technically by holding it irrelevant on the ground that Illinois law does not address the preclusive effect of a state court judgment on a federal antitrust suit, see 726 F.2d 1150, 1154 (1984). In the circumstances presented by this case, a fair reading of 1738 requires federal courts to look first to general principles of state preclusion law. Those principles control if they clearly establish that the state court judgment does not bar the later federal action: Only recently, we reaffirmed [470 U.S. 373, 388] in Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75 (1984), that a federal court is not free to accord greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts themselves would give to it.
The Court now remands with directions for the District Court to consider Illinois claim preclusion law, but no guidance is given as to how the District Court should proceed if it finds state law silent or indeterminate on the claim preclusion question. The Court's refusal to acknowledge this potential problem appears to stem from a belief that the jurisdictional competency requirement of res judicata doctrine will dispose of most cases like this. See ante, at 382.
I cannot agree with the Court's interpretation of the jurisdictional competency requirement. If state law provides a cause of action that is virtually identical with a federal statutory cause of action, a plaintiff suing in state court is able to rely on the same theory of the case and obtain the same remedy as would be available in federal court, even when the plaintiff cannot expressly invoke the federal statute because it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. In this situation, the jurisdictional competency requirement is effectively satisfied. Therefore, the fact that state law recognizes the jurisdictional competency requirement does not necessarily imply that a state court judgment has no claim preclusive effect on a cause of action within exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The states that recognize the jurisdictional competency requirement do not all define it in the same terms. Illinois courts have expressed the doctrine in the following manner: "The principle [of res judicata] extends not only to questions which were actually litigated but also to all questions which could have been raised or determined." Spiller v. Continental Tube Co., 95 Ill. 2d 423, 432, 447 N. E. 2d 834, 838 (1983) (emphasis added); see also, e. g., LaSalle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees, 61 Ill. 2d 524, 529, 337 N. E. 2d 19, 22 (1975); People v. Kidd, 398 Ill. 405, 408, 75 N. E. 2d 851, 853-854 (1947). In the present case, each [470 U.S. 373, 389] petitioner could have alleged a cause of action under the Illinois Antitrust Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 60-1 et seq. (1981), in his prior state court lawsuit against respondent. The principles of Illinois res judicata doctrine appear to be indeterminate as to whether petitioners' ability to raise state antitrust claims in their prior state court suits should preclude their assertion of essentially the same claims in the present federal action. This indeterminacy arises from the fact that the Illinois courts have not addressed whether the notion of "questions which could have been raised" should be applied narrowly 1 or broadly. 2 No Illinois court has considered how the jurisdictional competency requirement should apply in the type of situation presented by this case, where the same theory of recovery may be asserted under different statutes. Nor has any Illinois court considered whether res judicata precludes splitting a cause of action between a court of limited jurisdiction and one of general jurisdiction. 3 [470 U.S. 373, 390]
Hence it is likely that the principles of Illinois claim preclusion law do not speak to the preclusive effect that petitioners' state court judgments should have on the present action. In this situation, it may be consistent with 1738 for a federal court to formulate a federal rule to resolve the matter. If state law is simply indeterminate, the concerns of comity and federalism underlying 1738 do not come into play. At the same time, the federal courts have direct interests in ensuring that their resources are used efficiently and not as a means of harassing defendants with repetitive lawsuits, as well as in ensuring that parties asserting federal rights have an adequate opportunity to litigate those rights. Given the insubstantiality of the state interests and the weight of the federal interests, a strong argument could be made that a federal rule would be more appropriate than a creative interpretation of ambiguous state law. 4 When state law is indeterminate or ambiguous, a clear federal rule would promote substantive interests as well: "Uncertainty intrinsically works to defeat the opportunities for repose and reliance sought by the rules of preclusion, and confounds the desire for efficiency by inviting repetitious litigation to test the preclusive effects of the first effort." 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, supra, n. 3, 4407, at 49.
A federal rule might be fashioned from the test, which this Court has applied in other contexts, that a party is precluded [470 U.S. 373, 391] from asserting a claim that he had a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate in a prior action. See, e. g., Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 485 (1982); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95 (1980); Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 328 (1971). Thus, if a state statute is identical in all material respects with a federal statute within exclusive federal jurisdiction, a party's ability to assert a claim under the state statute in a prior state court action might be said to have provided, in effect, a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate his rights under the federal statute. Cf. Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors, 724 F.2d 1347 (CA9 1983); Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co., 640 F.2d 484 (CA4), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 878 (1981).
The Court will eventually have to face these questions; I would resolve them now.
[ Footnote 1 ] E. g., by inquiring whether the plaintiff could have raised the question whether the defendant violated a particular statute.
[ Footnote 2 ] E. g., by inquiring whether the plaintiff could have raised the question whether the defendant engaged in a group boycott.
[ Footnote 3 ] Compare Restatement (Second) of Judgments 24, Comment g, Illustration 14, pp. 204-205 (1982):
[ Footnote 4 ] By contrast, when a federal court construes substantive rights and obligations under state law in the context of a diversity action, the federal interest is insignificant and the state's interest is much more direct than it is in the present situation, even if the relevant state law is ambiguous. [470 U.S. 373, 392]